Module naming and declarations

Kevin Smith zenparsing at gmail.com
Wed May 1 21:59:30 PDT 2013


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Jason Orendorff
<jason.orendorff at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
> > - Dave, your argument that URI's as a naming mechanism is a "failure"
> > cherry-picks cases where URIs were obviously overkill.
>
> What counterexamples should David have mentioned?
>
>
Well, it's Dave's job to come up with one, not mine ; P

Actually, I'm starting to think that the "URI vs. unstructured names"
argument is a bit of a tangent.  These are the kinds of arguments to have
when designing a packaging system, not the core module system.

A clean separation between modules and packages will give us the freedom to
experiment with different approaches to inter-package dependency resolution
(IPDR, so I don't have to repeat it later).  At the base level, we just
want URLs.  Loader hooks can then be used to give special semantics to URI
subsets, or even to provide AMD-style URL overloading.*

We don't need to solve the IPDR problem with the core module system.
 Instead, we can provide the primitives and see what flourishes.

{ Kevin }

*Note that CommonJS always blurred the distinction between packages and
modules.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130502/b0a75f55/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list