Hi, As far as I know there is no good reason for that. Probably it was written when we wasn't very familiar with requirejs. I had already fixed one instance of this
https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-web/commit/8c15d46ac5e6d2fe46db3588322ab2b92907987f On Sunday, 3 November 2013, Rogelio Mita wrote: > a small intrigue was presented to us related to the way of defining the > requirejs "activity" module: > https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-web-template/blob/master/js/activity.js > > We note that there are some alternatives to define modules proposed by > requirejs: Define a Module with Simplified CommonJS > Wrapper<http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#cjsmodule> and > Define a Module as a Function<http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#funcmodule>, > and > we no found any other apparent reason that this: *"If you wish to reuse > some code that was written in the traditional CommonJS module format it May > be Difficult to re-work to the array of dependencies used above, and you > May prefer to Have direct alignment of dependency name to the local > Variable used for that dependency "*. > Then, there is some particularity reason for you chose to use the "Define > a CommonJS Module with Simplified Wrapper" way?, it's just a curiosity that > can help us solve the intrigue =). > Maybe for having a reason for > var activity = require("sugar-web/activity/activity"); ? > > > 2013/11/1 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'dwnarv...@gmail.com');>> > >> Yeah I think it make sense to mention it in the documentation, it's >> something every developer will run into. I'd suggest to try and keep our >> own documentation as short as possible and link out to the requirejs shim >> doc though, to avoid duplication and help maintenance. >> >> sounds good > > >> >> On Saturday, 2 November 2013, Code wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Daniel! >>> I'd rather use "shim", too. >>> >>> I think it's a common need to have non-AMD dependencies when building an >>> activity. >>> What do you think about finding out a canonical way to achieve this and >>> write it down in "write your own activity" doc? >>> >>> I'm willing to make a pull-request with the updated doc. >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> Code >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> I think we have been suggesting to use the shim. Modifying loader.js >>>> should be fine, the template one shouldn't change often. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1 November 2013 22:02, Code <irag...@activitycentral.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, list! >>>>> I'd like to add a non-AMD lib (AngularJS in this case) to my activity. >>>>> >>>>> Here only points out how to add AMD ones: >>>>> >>>>> http://developer.sugarlabs.org/activity.md.html#using%20other%20javascript%20libraries >>>>> >>>>> Of course there are workarounds like adding script tags (I'd rather >>>>> not) or setting up the "shim" option from RequireJS config... >>>>> https://github.com/code-sur/web-activity-POC/blob/master/js/loader.js >>>>> >>>>> But it seems that I shouldn't be touching the loader.js file, isn't it? >>>>> >>>>> Is there a standard/preferred way to achieve this? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Code >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>>>> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Narvaez >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Daniel Narvaez >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> 'Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org');> >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> >> > > Thanks! > > -- > Roger > > Activity Central <http://activitycentral.com/> > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel