Fascinating.. it's using `node_modules/shadow-cljs` to do the trick. I can
see ClojureScript files are compiled into CommonJS compatible form...
Do you think it's possible that we put all js built from `cjs.core`(also
with `goog`) into a single npm package. And then for each ClojureScript
file, it is mapped to a JavaScript file by `shadow-cljs` tools, which use
`require("./cljs.core.js");` to access it's cljs dependencies(like in your
demo), and use `require('package_name/foo/bar')` to require sibling files.
For other packages, maybe we can do the some trick, like precompile them
with `shadow-cljs` tools and then release them to npm. Seeing from a
CoffeeScript user, I think somehow in this way ClojureScript can also fit
into npm's ecosystem.
Here's an example, we may create a new project in such file structure,
where:
`src/` is for source code,
`target` is for compiled code,
`package.json` is copied from `assets/package.json` to
`target/package.json`,
```
.
├── assets
│ └── package.json
├── project.clj
├── src
│ └── demo
│ └── main.cljs
└── target
├── demo
│ └── main.js
└── package.json
```
if it's in this way, `target/` can be released on npm as a module and
others surely may use `require('package_name/demo/main.js')` to load the
package built from ClojureScript.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:15 AM Thomas Heller <th.hel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. Should we call this "cljs-require"? With the understanding that it
> is a bit like a portal to cljs's ":require" form:
> >
> > require('cljs-require/foo.core')
>
> The package name must be something you add to your package.json, otherwise
> yarn will nuke the directory every time you run "yarn install". "npm" isn't
> as strict but still. Using the name of the tool seemed like the obvious
> choice. We can however create an empty cljs-require npm package that just
> serves as a placeholder.
>
> I'm totally for this if other tools want to adopt this idiom. I definitely
> do not want this to be something you can only do with shadow-cljs.
>
>
> > 2. Is there a way to set the ClojureScript version, or is it tied to
> shadow's version?
>
> You can specify dependencies in package.json, basically like you would in
> lein.
>
> "shadow-cljs: {
> "version":"1.0.20170516",
> "dependencies": [
> ["org.clojure/clojurescript", "1.9.542"]
> ]
> }
>
> where "version" is the version of shadow-devtools, any other dependencies
> are resolved using the fantastic pomegrenate lib. (thanks btw for writing
> the dep-resolver, I didn't think it would be this simple to do the
> dependency loading).
>
> I'm not sure how the conflict resolution works but you should be able to
> use any cljs version you want. The only things written in stone are the
> deps of the shadow-cljs uberjar, can't change the clojure version after the
> fact.
>
> See:
>
> https://github.com/thheller/shadow-devtools/blob/master/npm-package/project.clj
>
>
> >
> > 3. Thinking back on Jiyin's question about using cljs in webpack—have
> you put any thought into the possibility of this workflow as a webpack
> loader? Maybe that's a next step?
>
> Don't need a loader. It could be a plugin that just calls "shadow-cljs
> --once"
> before proceeding with the rest of the JS compilation.
>
> I actually started by writing a plugin but to be honest I do not think it
> is super useful. You can achieve the same via npm scripts & co. You'll need
> the CLI tool for more advanced tasks (eg. REPL) anyways.
>
> I want this to be generally useful, not just webpack. No specific webpack
> configuration is needed, you just somehow need to compile before calling
> webpack. "webpack -w" and "shadow-cljs --dev" side-by-side actually just
> works.
>
> > Awesome job turning this webpack discussion into a real tool we can
> explore! 🎉
>
> Thanks.
>
> One issue that needs to be addressed is the widespread use of CLJSJS
> packages in popular libs like reagent&co. Can't have cljsjs.react react.js
> if you are supposed to use npm react.
>
> I can easily skip over all foreign-libs but then (:require [cljsjs.react])
> wouldn't have the effect of ensuring that "React" is available on global.
> Not yet sure how to best handle that yet.
>
> Still have a few ideas I want to explore, haven't totally given up on the
> Closure Compiler yet but it making life harder than it should be.
>
> --
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "ClojureScript" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojurescript/AGXku7Ous0Y/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> clojurescript+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to clojurescript@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
>
--
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ClojureScript" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojurescript+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to clojurescript@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
