> Don't know of any technical requirement, though interestingly with script > injection in Cordova ... are you referring plugin scripts? Because they're > moving towards a model where they're concatenated at build time (using > browserify) rather than injected at runtime.
Concatenating/uglifying makes perfect sense for the release version. I was talking more about development environment. Being able to effortlessly trace your debug session to actual file on the disc is fundamental. > For me with Ripple, I just make sure I'm at least always working against a > non-uglified version of the source :). Ripple code is never uglified, not in the release even. :) So we’re covered there. :) -- // kai > On Jun 5, 2015, at 15:17, Tim Barham <[email protected]> wrote: > > Don't know of any technical requirement, though interestingly with script > injection in Cordova ... are you referring plugin scripts? Because they're > moving towards a model where they're concatenated at build time (using > browserify) rather than injected at runtime. > > For me with Ripple, I just make sure I'm at least always working against a > non-uglified version of the source :). > > -----Original Message----- > From: Arzhan Kinzhalin [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arzhan > Kinzhalin > Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 11:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: A question about require (ripple): why build-time stacking instead > of runtime injection? > > Hi all; > > I was wondering if there’s a reason for require() (which is aliased to > ripple) to have its current form? I understand it’s been taken as-is from > cordova, but even cordova does inject script instead of stacking them up into > a huge poorly debuggable blob. > > I guess my question is whether there was a specific technical reason to use > cordova-require/build-time pack combination instead of > cordova-require/runtime inject or plain require.js? Is it purely historical > or is there some technical background that I am missing? > > Major disadvantage is that the development environment is unnecessarily > complicated. We could have two versions: running ripple for dev environment > and release version (optimised/concatenated). Would this be a reasonable > change? If the dev community around this project is to grow, the development > environment should be friendly. :) > > -- > // kai >
