You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We've been thinking that the paths and packages configuration syntax is bulky. It's also not clear to new devs which to use: paths or packages?
This new syntax would make it succint to declare the two most common types of packages: those like when.js and those like jquery:
packages: {// a typical package wherein the ancillary modules // are siblings to the main modulewhen: 'packages/when/when',// a typical mega-module-just-wrapped-in-amd packagejquery: 'packages/jquery1.9.1/jquery.min',// a package whose modules are in a sub folderfunky: {main: 'packages/funky3.1/funky',modules: './lib'},// back-compat with current syntaxwire: {location: 'packages/wire',main: 'wire'}}
We could offer the back-compat syntax by sniffing for the existence of location.
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We've been thinking that the paths and packages configuration syntax is bulky. It's also not clear to new devs which to use: paths or packages?
This new syntax would make it succint to declare the two most common types of packages: those like when.js and those like jquery:
We could offer the back-compat syntax by sniffing for the existence of
location
.Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: