Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (2014-01-27 23:50):
This is absolutely necessary for polyfilling.
Imagine that some browser has an ok-but-not-complete implementation of
the X library, but you want to use jQuery 17, which requires a better
version. You need to be able to replace X with a polyfilled update to
X, and then load jQuery on top of that.
Note that this involves indirect access in the same library (jQuery)
to two versions of X (the polyfill and the browser version), which is
why I don't think Marius's worry is fixable without throwing out the
baby with the bathwater.
Keeping your syntax you could declare:
<script type="module" name="jquery_1_17" src="jquery1.js"></script>
<script type="module" name="jquery_2_1" src="jquery2.js"></script>
Then the script that need 1.17 uses import:
import $ from "jquery_1_17";
And script that need 2.1:
import $ from "jquery_2_1";
But to my understanding a loader could be created that could
automatically resolve something like (i.e. per some convention it would
now where to find best CDN for each jQuery version):
import $ from "cdn.jquery/2.1";
Or just a full URL:
import $ from "http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.1.0.min.js";
I actually like that syntax much more then declaring stuff in HTML. Not
sure if that will be possible though.
Sam
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:45 PM, John Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
What is the use case for allowing registration different modules under the
same name? IMO should be an error.
jjb
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:32 PM, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Marius Gundersen <[email protected]> wrote:
So then there would be two versions of the same module, and a module
could get access to both these modules at the same time. For example, if
ModuleB, which depends on ModuleA is loaded and linked, and later ModuleA is
redefined, then ModuleC could depend on both ModuleB and ModueA, and would
get (indirect) access to two versions of ModuleA. Is this problem
preventable?
It's important to be able to modify module registration for things like
polyfilling. But that doesn't mean it's something people should do in
general. Note that Jason only gave you an answer in the context of the basic
module loader semantics; he didn't say what will happen in the HTML
semantics. In particular, we can make it an error for there to be two
definitions of the same module name in the same HTML, a la:
<script type="module" name="jquery" src="jquery1.js"></script>
<script type="module" name="jquery" src="jquery2.js"></script>
I'm inclined to call that an error, and require imperative modifications
of existing module registrations to use imperative code.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
