[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-7187?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18093477#comment-18093477
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on WICKET-7187:
----------------------------------------
bitstorm commented on PR #1498:
URL: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/1498#issuecomment-4877696316
@jstuyts hi see the point. The PR looks good to me but as I mentioned in the
previous comment I would apply this "as is" to the wicket-10.x branch, while I
think we might rework it for branch master where compatibility constraints
don't apply. What do you think if we use class JavaScriptHeaderItem as target
base class for type field?
> JavaScript header items: `module` for content, and import maps
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WICKET-7187
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-7187
> Project: Wicket
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: wicket-core
> Reporter: Johan Stuyts
> Priority: Major
>
> A number of JavaScript components has stopped providing
> [UMD|https://github.com/umdjs/umd] builds, and provide [ECMAScript
> modules|https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-modules] instead. To be able to use
> those modules, JavaScript in the header must also be a module. But currently
> it is not possible to specify the type for
> {{{}JavaScriptContentHeaderItem{}}}.
> Additionally, modules use "[bare
> modules|https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/Elements/script/type/importmap#bare_modules]";
> to import dependencies, and these bare modules need to be mapped to the URLs
> of resource references so the JavaScript can be loaded.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
