>> You can end up with multiple directories for the same stuff I don't see how this follows from using variations on the <package-id> argument to bower.
>> Many people use bower's command line search tool >> If we don't register our packages (polymer-ajax, for example) it means someone else can squat on the name >> It feels "un-bower" like to force people to use Owner/Repo syntax. I want to use Bower strictly as a dependency management tool. The rest of this stuff is scope-creep from that perspective. There is extreme resistance in the developer world to any kind of prescribed tooling, so tightly coupling to any tool has a high cost, and we don't need to pay that cost if Bower is just one of the possible ways to get stuff. For example, I'm on record against using 'bower_components' as a folder name (all our projects use a .bowerrc to reset that name) because our components can be installed any number of ways, Bower is simply not a requirement. Bower is awesome, I'm not knocking it. But IMO part of it's awesomeness is the flexibility it offers. The ability to rename the components folder and the ability to use Org/Repo package identifiers are really the primary reasons I chose this tool over NPM. Scott On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Rob Dodson <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment in this case only because I'm > worried the cons might outweigh the pros. > > Here are all the cons I can think of: > > You can end up with multiple directories for the same stuff. I think this > is actually a big enough problem on its own to outweigh everything else. > There are many people who are not bower savvy who will have a tough time > debugging issues with a polymer and polymer-polymer directory floating > around in their bower_components dir. I'm really worried about component > authors mixing Owner/Repo and registry named dependencies... > > Many people use bower's command line search tool (myself included) which > only looks at packages in the registry. If we don't register our packages > we're removing that avenue. Technically some of our packages are registered > but not all of them, which leads to the next point... > > If we don't register our packages (polymer-ajax, for example) it means > someone else can squat on the name. Which is a bit of a bummer. And folks > might install the wrong component. > > It feels "un-bower" like to force people to use Owner/Repo syntax. Polymer > is the only project I know of which goes this route. Most libraries that > know about bower and include a bower.json have a name in the registry that > they encourage people to use. > > > The pros I can think of: > > It makes it easier to manage all of your components when you don't have to > deal with registering them. This is especially tough on a project like > polymer where components have so many interdependencies. > > You're not too tied to the bower name/brand/methodology. You don't want > people thinking that bower "owns" these components, in some fashion. > > You don't have to fight over a registry name. If someone had already > registered polymer-ajax it wouldn't be a big deal to keep using Owner/Repo. > > > > Ultimately we're telling users two different ways to do it in our docs > which has to be confusing for anyone new to bower. Above all else we should > decide which direction to go with and use it everywhere. > > - Rob > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Scott Miles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm not a fan of central registries. I've advocated using >> `Polymer/<element>` syntax since we embraced Bower, so that's my $0.02. >> >> Scott >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Marcin Warpechowski >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> In my projects I have experienced some problems (version conflicts) when >>> using "polymer", since then I am using "Polymer/polymer". I am sure not >>> everyone understands bower so deep to understand the implications, so I >>> think it would be good to do it consistently. >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:42:28 PM UTC+1, Rob Dodson wrote: >>>> >>>> I noticed there are some polymer packages registered in the bower >>>> registry. >>>> >>>> polymer (links to components/polymer) >>>> polymer-platform >>>> polymer-elements >>>> polymer-ui-elements >>>> polymer-polymer (links to Polymer/polymer) >>>> >>>> In the polymer docs, we sometimes tell people to install from a package >>>> >>>> $ bower install polymer >>>> >>>> and we sometimes tell them to install from the repo >>>> >>>> $ bower install Polymer/polymer-elements >>>> >>>> I'm wondering if there might be an incompatibility situation. >>>> For example, if a component author adds polymer-polymer to their >>>> bower.json file, then bower is going to create a folder called >>>> "polymer-polymer" in the bower_components dir. If another author depends on >>>> "polymer" then the bower_components dir will now contain directories for >>>> both polymer and polymer-polymer. So you might end up with elements >>>> importing the same libraries from different locations. >>>> >>>> I'm wondering if we should have one consistent way of doing (and >>>> documenting) everything? >>>> >>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Polymer" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/1154107e-afb1-4a7f-85ca-f405fb1725d4%40googlegroups.com >>> . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Polymer" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAHbmOLaCe-wcFFWa_Sxayq4rNsAeGWPDfn1MOm-%2B%2BS%2By6FLyaQ%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAHbmOLZ%3DjWqwMnXKCgs_zZT2X800tGQkMkSiSWi%2Bg0TehF_%2BRA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
