Seems like we agree that Bower is not there yet. =P
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Rob Dodson <[email protected]> wrote: > Bower does not have an analogous relationship to the Web (at least, not >> yet =P). > > > Maybe not yet but someday... > > > When you acquire Node you get npm right in the box. Those tools are welded >> together. > > > That wasn't always the case <http://howtonode.org/introduction-to-npm> :) > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Scott Miles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Rob Dodson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Your statement about building an ecosystem is entirely correct. The >>>> notion that Bower search is the key to that kingdom I find entirely >>>> dubious. >>> >>> >>> I don't think it's the key—I don't think there is any one key—but it's a >>> huge leg up. The search built in to npm/npmjs.org drives the node >>> module ecosystem. >>> >> >> When you acquire Node you get npm right in the box. Those tools are >> welded together. >> >> Bower does not have an analogous relationship to the Web (at least, not >> yet =P). >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Scott Miles <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Your statement about building an ecosystem is entirely correct. The >>>> notion that Bower search is the key to that kingdom I find entirely >>>> dubious. >>>> >>>> If I make a GitHub repository for my new project, it's available via >>>> GitHub search, Google search, and installable via Bower. If another tool >>>> comes along, it will work too. >>>> >>>> I'm not suggesting that we never publish to the Bower registry, but I >>>> will push back on any effort to lock ourselves into any one particular >>>> registry or tool. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Rob Dodson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I want to use Bower strictly as a dependency management tool. The rest >>>>>> of this stuff is scope-creep from that perspective. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Avoiding the registry means avoiding `bower search` and I think that's >>>>> a very very big missed opportunity. If the success of polymer/web >>>>> components relies on building an ecosystem then all channels of search are >>>>> crucial to that success. The bower search channel is well established and >>>>> we should leverage it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Scott Miles <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >> 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/CAJj5OwBL-mbdgZ954eGFtPcqvva8H1tfKfEGnx9t284NJx8hBQ%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/CAHbmOLa-yU_W57EzQUq5XEW75JpQNioZBgCJGhDrfhE580i7%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
