[aerogear-dev] Bundling Dependencies

[Lucas Holmquist]

On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Kris Borchers <kris at 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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev