[dojo-contributors] Module formats for the browser

Tom Trenka ttrenka at gmail.com
Fri Mar 26 09:50:04 EDT 2010


I'm a +1 on moving to RequireJS, particularly as a goal for Dojo 2.0.
I haven't looked over the CommonJS formats well enough to comment on
substantially but I think I'm with Eugene in that I'm not sure it
makes sense for Dojo itself--but having that as a plug-in (as
hopefully DojoX finally becomes by 2.0) sounds great to me as well.

Regards,
Tom

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Kris Zyp <kzyp at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
> The preference of whether to code Dojo in CommonJS format or not, and
> the value of that in making Dojo readily available in that format does
> go well beyond the technical, and if most don't want to code in that
> format, I am fine with that. If we can support the CommonJS transport
> format through RequireJS, that is enough awesome for me.
>
> I am correct that there is general agreement that we should move to
> RequireJS for module loading in the future? Does my migration path (I
> think it is still applicable) seem like reasonable path towards RequireJS?
>
> I think the one other question is whether we should support naked
> CommonJS modules (sync loading without transport wrapping). I would say
> that does not belong in base (and maybe not core either), but maybe
> create a module (maybe in dojox) that could handle this.
>
> Thanks,
> Kris
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list