[aerogear-dev] bower repos for custom builds

[Lucas Holmquist]

On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:42 PM, Douglas Campos <qmx at qmx.me> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 02:13:05PM -0500, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Douglas Campos <qmx at qmx.me> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:40:47AM -0500, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
>>>> so i created this JIRA https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGJS-133
>>>> 
>>>> It would kind of neat if we offered some custom builds in bower,
>>>> 
>>>> this way it could make it super easy for someone to pull in just data
>>>> manager for example
>>>> 
>>>> $ bower install aerogear-datamanager
> 
> One of the things we briefly talked on IRC that I promised to post here:
> 
> I was (naively) thinking that this command would bring this to the app:
> 
> - aerogear-datamanager.js
> +-- aerogear-core.js (as a dependency)

currently the builds in the AeroGear-components repo's are basically the result of running 

    $ grunt data-manager  // or pipeline, or whatever

so aerogear.core.js and all related dependencies are built it. since bower is basically just a front end on top of curl 

this is nice if someone is just using one thing,  but if they want more than 1 "component",  code will start to get duplicated,  although each "component" is in it's own closure(IIFE), so they shouldn't mess with each other,  but still.

1 solution is to break core into it's own repo and add it to the components dependency so only one copy would exist, but the user would have to remember to include that in there script declarations and that would sort of break the IIFE that is suppose to enclose the whole thing

this is where AMD might come in, not sure.  

i know dojo breaks there components into pieces and each one has to be included,  although i haven't played with it.

At this point i'm not really sure if AMDifiying the library is worth it,  i need to do more research on how to break things up


> 
> So, what do we need to do to have something like this? Is AMD-ifying the
> project the only solution for having this?
> 
>> at the moment we only have "official releases",  but it would be
>> interesting to have the "development release" also available since
>> these are really just tags
> 
> Hmm, but wouldn't this mean we just end up with a ton of tags? if people
> want to use development builds they can point to the repo, can't they?
> 
> -- 
> qmx
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev