One other thing comes to mind if we wanted to put standard encrypt/decrpyt operation in a web worker e.g. If an app wanted to do bulk processing of emails off the main thread (which would block for seconds).
You can't do that in a worker with browserify because openpgp.js needs to collect encrypt using window.crypto.getRandomValues. Generating keys outside a a worker thread is very possible with AMD since you don't have to bundle and can load single modules selectively. Tankred > Am 24.10.2013 um 08:34 schrieb Tankred Hase <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > >> Am 24.10.2013 um 04:06 schrieb Sean Colyer <[email protected]>: >> >> I'm not sure I see huge advantages for OpenPGP.js using AMD/require.js. It >> seems a bit cumbersome when I've looked at writing it. I think >> common.js/browserify approach is more common, and seems an easier path to >> node support. The build step seems pretty minor to me but I am curious about >> why AMD has been much better for testing in your experience. > > You can mock dependencies for unit tests using the require.js config. > The build step can also become cumbersome during testing. > >> I'm not totally opposed to it, but I'm just not entirely convinced that it's >> worth switching right now. Do you think it would increase our longterm >> ability to develop OpenPGP.js? > > Thomas also had some some concerns. I don't want to intrude the > current refactoring. I think want you guys are doing is great. > > The main advantage I see is community support and stability. > Require.js is much more battle proven und is used by projects such as > jquery. > > We've also had some big problems getting the browserified bundle to > work with web worker as you would have to load the whole bundle and a > single invocation of window or document in the bundle would make it > impossible. This is why forge goes the AMD route. That way they can > load JSBN.js for generating keys in two parallel web worker threads > that don't block the ui. If we want to reuse these things, it would > probably be easier with AMD. > > Regarding the long term EcmaScript 6 will introduce a standard module > system, that is different from both AMD/Commons.js anyway so it > wouldn't make mich difference. > > http://www.2ality.com/2013/07/es6-modules.html?m=1 > > All in all I can understand if you guys want to stick with common.js. > > I'm curious how you currently invoke the minified bundle in the > browser. I had to add the following line to the index.js to make it > work > > if (typeof window !== 'undefined') { > window.openpgp = module.exports; > } > > Tankred _______________________________________________ http://openpgpjs.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: http://list.openpgpjs.org
