[dojo-contributors] Module formats for the browser

Kris Zyp kzyp at dojotoolkit.org
Fri Mar 26 12:53:04 EDT 2010



On 3/26/2010 10:44 AM, James Burke wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Kris Zyp <kzyp at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> In my proposed migration path, I suggested adding RequireJS and
>> retaining dojo.require support for 1.x. How does that break backwards
>> compatibility? Perhaps I should have explicitly stated that as a
>> corrolary to keeping dojo.require that we also need to retain our global
>> namespaces. I think we could move to defining modules with something
>> like this for 1.x:
>>     
> Instead of mixing both loader schemes in one file, I like providing a
> RequireJS-converted Dojo 1.x release alongside the normal release.
> This is actually what I use for Raindrop -- a converted Dojo that uses
> RequireJS as the loader. I still have the regular Dojo loader code in
> there. Rawld Gill was doing some more experiments to even remove that
> loader, but I believe he got busy with work.
>
> The conversion process I use now has some manual steps. I would be OK
> for the 1.x code putting in build pragmas to make those manual steps
> automatic with the RequireJS build, and we would need to rework the
> requireIf usage particularly in dojox.gfx. With that, maybe have the
> build pragmas strip out the regular Dojo loader.
>
> So those are steps I would allow for conversion: provide a sister
> build of Dojo that just uses RequireJS in the Dojo 1.x timeframe, that
> is enabled by some build pragmas and requireIf changes.
>
> It does mean you cannot mix the two loaders, but I think that is fine,
> given the type of change.
>
> How does that sound?
>   
That's fine with me. Do you have a link to your distribution or some
example modules that have been converted that we could look at? How does
that impact the size of base dojo.js? Can I start using it now?

Thanks,
Kris


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list