7:03 a.m.
So I have a dilemma on which I would like input from the team. In
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGJS-48 qmx reports that he gets:
Uncaught ReferenceError: vertx is not defined at aerogear.js:2627
when using AeroGear.js in a blank page. The reason for this is that the full build of
AeroGear.js contains the new vert.x and STOMP over websocket adapters for Notifier. These
adapters have dependencies on vertxbus.js and stomp.js respectively. Since they are not
included in the page, you get that error. Here is the dilemma.
Do I bundle those files into AeroGear.js as part of the build when those adapters are
included or not? The reason I did not is because they are external dependencies and I
didn't want them bloating the file size just like we do with jQuery. That said,
it's obviously easy to not realize you need those files, especially if you grab
AeroGear.js and don't intend on using the Notifier bits or just grab it and throw it
in a page and see those errors as qmx did.
Thoughts?
7:33 a.m.
ok, so here is the previous thread about this
http://bit.ly/V551nI
This is a bit tricky since the way someone can get the libs are different.
1. Bower
2. Custom Builder
3. github - clone src, build
4. ????
With bower, socksjs is available, but not vertxbus.js or stomp.js, we could create
repo's to "host" those 2 so bower can find them. It doesn't have to be
an official aerogear repo, it can be mine. i've seen this done before.
i sort of like this since bower will then pull in everything. i actually had to tell
bower to get 1.0.1 for the push admin ui, since i didn't want to look for the other
dependencies.
although, i didn't need them, i wonder if we should maybe have a "core"
branch, where just the 1.0.X stuff lives. although that could complicate things with
bower possibly.
i believe with the github options, we have a list of dependencies on the read me with
links on where to get them.
With the custom builder, we could package the appropriate dependencies.
On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
So I have a dilemma on which I would like input from the team. In
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGJS-48 qmx reports that he gets:
Uncaught ReferenceError: vertx is not defined at aerogear.js:2627
when using AeroGear.js in a blank page. The reason for this is that the full build of
AeroGear.js contains the new vert.x and STOMP over websocket adapters for Notifier. These
adapters have dependencies on vertxbus.js and stomp.js respectively. Since they are not
included in the page, you get that error. Here is the dilemma.
Do I bundle those files into AeroGear.js as part of the build when those adapters are
included or not? The reason I did not is because they are external dependencies and I
didn't want them bloating the file size just like we do with jQuery. That said,
it's obviously easy to not realize you need those files, especially if you grab
AeroGear.js and don't intend on using the Notifier bits or just grab it and throw it
in a page and see those errors as qmx did.
Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
7:50 a.m.
Just a guess, would not require.js and creating customized Aerogear.js bundle
per customer's scenario help here?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 07:03:07 -0500
Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
So I have a dilemma on which I would like input from the team. In
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGJS-48 qmx reports that he gets:
Uncaught ReferenceError: vertx is not defined at aerogear.js:2627
when using AeroGear.js in a blank page. The reason for this is that the full
build of AeroGear.js contains the new vert.x and STOMP over websocket
adapters for Notifier. These adapters have dependencies on vertxbus.js and
stomp.js respectively. Since they are not included in the page, you get that
error. Here is the dilemma.
Do I bundle those files into AeroGear.js as part of the build when those
adapters are included or not? The reason I did not is because they are
external dependencies and I didn't want them bloating the file size just like
we do with jQuery. That said, it's obviously easy to not realize you need
those files, especially if you grab AeroGear.js and don't intend on using the
Notifier bits or just grab it and throw it in a page and see those errors as
qmx did.
Thoughts?
7:54 a.m.
I don't think we need to go down the AMD path just yet. That said, we already provide
a way to do custom builds http://aerogear.org/download/custom/. The problem is that still
doesn't bundle the external deps into the built file. That's one of the points of
this thread is whether or not we should. I don't think we should TBH, but I want other
opinions.
On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Just a guess, would not require.js and creating customized
Aerogear.js bundle
per customer's scenario help here?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 07:03:07 -0500
Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> So I have a dilemma on which I would like input from the team. In
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGJS-48 qmx reports that he gets:
>
> Uncaught ReferenceError: vertx is not defined at aerogear.js:2627
>
> when using AeroGear.js in a blank page. The reason for this is that the full
> build of AeroGear.js contains the new vert.x and STOMP over websocket
> adapters for Notifier. These adapters have dependencies on vertxbus.js and
> stomp.js respectively. Since they are not included in the page, you get that
> error. Here is the dilemma.
>
> Do I bundle those files into AeroGear.js as part of the build when those
> adapters are included or not? The reason I did not is because they are
> external dependencies and I didn't want them bloating the file size just like
> we do with jQuery. That said, it's obviously easy to not realize you need
> those files, especially if you grab AeroGear.js and don't intend on using the
> Notifier bits or just grab it and throw it in a page and see those errors as
> qmx did.
>
> Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
8:04 a.m.
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 07:03:07AM -0500, Kris Borchers wrote:
Do I bundle those files into AeroGear.js as part of the build when
those adapters are included or not? The reason I did not is because
they are external dependencies and I didn't want them bloating the
file size just like we do with jQuery. That said, it's obviously easy
to not realize you need those files, especially if you grab
AeroGear.js and don't intend on using the Notifier bits or just grab
it and throw it in a page and see those errors as qmx did.
Lemme turn it the other
way around: why don't we have aerogear.js being
the core bits, and aerogear-notifier.js as a separate thing?
I mean, all those dependencies should be opt-in instead of opt-out IMO
--
qmx
8:07 a.m.
Technically, you can use it that way. I use the individual files in the unit tests for
example. It's just more convenient for users to have a single built file to include.
On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:04 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 07:03:07AM -0500, Kris Borchers wrote:
> Do I bundle those files into AeroGear.js as part of the build when
> those adapters are included or not? The reason I did not is because
> they are external dependencies and I didn't want them bloating the
> file size just like we do with jQuery. That said, it's obviously easy
> to not realize you need those files, especially if you grab
> AeroGear.js and don't intend on using the Notifier bits or just grab
> it and throw it in a page and see those errors as qmx did.
Lemme turn it the other way around: why don't we have aerogear.js being
the core bits, and aerogear-notifier.js as a separate thing?
I mean, all those dependencies should be opt-in instead of opt-out IMO
--
qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
8:13 a.m.
On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Technically, you can use it that way. I use the individual files in
the unit tests for example. It's just more convenient for users to have a single built
file to include.
On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:04 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 07:03:07AM -0500, Kris Borchers wrote:
>> Do I bundle those files into AeroGear.js as part of the build when
>> those adapters are included or not? The reason I did not is because
>> they are external dependencies and I didn't want them bloating the
>> file size just like we do with jQuery. That said, it's obviously easy
>> to not realize you need those files, especially if you grab
>> AeroGear.js and don't intend on using the Notifier bits or just grab
>> it and throw it in a page and see those errors as qmx did.
> Lemme turn it the other way around: why don't we have aerogear.js being
> the core bits, and aerogear-notifier.js as a separate thing?
>
> I mean, all those dependencies should be opt-in instead of opt-out IMO
hmm, that could be interesting, sort of like ember and ember data . use have to opt in
for that,
so could the break out be:
aerogear.js
aerogear-notifier.js
aerogear-someotherreallycoolfeature.js
but for new things that don't need extra dependcies, would they be include in the
"core" file. so something like the indexedDB or WebSQL data manger adapter
>
> --
> qmx
> _______________________________________________
> 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
8:07 a.m.
The other issue with that way though is that the core file is useless on its own.
On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:04 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 07:03:07AM -0500, Kris Borchers wrote:
> Do I bundle those files into AeroGear.js as part of the build when
> those adapters are included or not? The reason I did not is because
> they are external dependencies and I didn't want them bloating the
> file size just like we do with jQuery. That said, it's obviously easy
> to not realize you need those files, especially if you grab
> AeroGear.js and don't intend on using the Notifier bits or just grab
> it and throw it in a page and see those errors as qmx did.
Lemme turn it the other way around: why don't we have aerogear.js being
the core bits, and aerogear-notifier.js as a separate thing?
I mean, all those dependencies should be opt-in instead of opt-out IMO
--
qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
4191
days inactive
4191
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Douglas Campos -
Karel Piwko -
Kris Borchers -
Lucas Holmquist -
Lucas Holmquist