Module naming and declarations
rossberg at google.com
Wed May 22 03:27:18 PDT 2013
On 21 May 2013 03:41, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
>> In your scheme, I honestly cannot tell. Which ones are absolute
>> logical module names, which ones are relative logical module names,
>> and which ones are relative URLs?
> I realized I left this sub-thread hanging. While I think you've overstated your argument in several places, I do recognize that combining URL's and module names that look like paths into one syntactic space is confusing.
> But really, there was no real need for loading directly from a URL in the first place, since it's better practice to use an abstract name and configure it to the URL you want anyway. (If people really want the additional convenience they can configure the loader to accept URL's.)
> So the right resolution for this question is: the browser loader recognizes logical modules names only. No URI's, no URL's, just logical module name paths. If a particular module name needs to be loaded from a remote URL, you can use the ondemand configuration to map the logical name ("jquery") to the URL ("http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.9.1.min.js").
Of course, that is not the "right" resolution in my mind, but the
wrong one entirely. ;) Moreover, haven't you just pushed the problem
to the ondemand API then? Or to "configured" loaders?
More information about the es-discuss