+1
This way, we're getting closer to native libs approach with separate libs
On 31 August 2015 at 10:55, Lukáš Fryč <lukas(a)fryc.eu> wrote:
You are right Luke, this start to make more and more sense :-)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Luke Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> so i decided to take a gander at the push client lib in the aerogear.js
> project. Currently if someone would like to use it, they have a couple
> options.
>
> 1. download the whole lib,
> 2. download a custom build from the website
> 3. download a custom build from bower
> 4. create a custom build from source
>
> In the past i think i was against breaking out pieces of the JS lib into
> separate repo's since we could just use the AeroGearComponents repo i
> created for custom builds. But i think with the state of the JS lib(not
> sure where it's going), it might make sense to, at least with the push
> lib(perhaps the simplePush polyfill also) to break those out into separate
> repo's similar to the other client projects.
>
> I think the starting vision of the project has changed, so perhaps this
> change is good.(this should probably be a whole separate thread)
>
> Now that Chrome and Safari have push in the browser, FF is getting it
> also very soon, it's possible this part of the library will be used more
>
>
> thoughts?
>
> -Luke
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev