What is the use case for allowing registration different modules under the same name? IMO should be an error. jjb
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:32 PM, David Herman <dher...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Marius Gundersen <gunder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So then there would be two versions of the same module, and a module > could get access to both these modules at the same time. For example, if > ModuleB, which depends on ModuleA is loaded and linked, and later ModuleA > is redefined, then ModuleC could depend on both ModuleB and ModueA, and > would get (indirect) access to two versions of ModuleA. Is this problem > preventable? > > It's important to be able to modify module registration for things like > polyfilling. But that doesn't mean it's something people should do in > general. Note that Jason only gave you an answer in the context of the > basic module loader semantics; he didn't say what will happen in the HTML > semantics. In particular, we can make it an error for there to be two > definitions of the same module name in the same HTML, a la: > > <script type="module" name="jquery" src="jquery1.js"></script> > <script type="module" name="jquery" src="jquery2.js"></script> > > I'm inclined to call that an error, and require imperative modifications > of existing module registrations to use imperative code. > > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
