I think specifying a particular shim in the package.json file is useful since more eyeballs will result in better cross browser support and testing for the particular shim. If you have to write the shim code yourself, you need to know more inner workings about the module.
You would still be able to override those shims with your own if you desired but at least this way it would have a better chance of working out of the box. On May 4, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Andreas Richter wrote: > I like the idea but shouldn't the package.json just specify whether a > client shim is needed or not? It seems too inflexible if you require a > specify shim. The shim or not shim would also depend on the platform, > browser or usage. Might be a can-o-worms... > Andy > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 4, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Roman Shtylman <shtyl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Since node.js code is javascript, many node.js modules have the useful >> property of being able to be run on client and server side. Using tools like >> browserify (https://github.com/substack/node-browserify) and script >> (https://github.com/shtylman/node-script) you can easily package node.js >> modules for the browser. >> >> However, there is generally one hurdle when doing this. Some modules depend >> on code or third party modules that are server specific. When bundling (act >> of preparing for the browser) these modules it would be wrong to include >> these server only modules. Instead, the bundler tool needs to be able to >> shim out those 3rd party modules in favor of alternate code which replicates >> the functionality in the browser. Currently tools like browserify and script >> allow you to do this manually in your code. This is error prone as you have >> to know the dependencies for any thrid party modules you use and track if >> you need to shim them out or not. Instead I propose that we "standardize" >> and put this information into the package.json file so that any such >> bundling tool (and other tools) will know that when the code is bound for a >> browser, certain modules should be replaced. >> >> Imagine a package.json with the following dependencies: >> >> "dependencies": { >> "ws": "x.x.x", >> "some_native_module": "x.x.x", >> "pure_js_module": "x.x.x" >> } >> >> The module author would now be able to provide the following additional >> section (if needed): >> >> "shims": { >> "ws": "./shims/ws.js", >> "some_native_module": "./shims/something.js" >> } >> >> This would be entirely optional but it would allow modules that have no >> technical impediment to working in the client and server to be bundled >> easier. I think this would be a useful addition since all the code is >> javascript and we as module authors can benefit and help others by >> recognizing and making it easier to use all of this new code in both >> environments. >> >> If you want to try this out, the wip-shim branch for script >> (https://github.com/shtylman/node-script/commits/wip-shim) has a working >> implementation. I hope other bundling tools jump on board :) >> >> Thoughts? Terrible? Useless? Wonderful? >>
