Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove opal-activesupport dependency? #135

Open
wied03 opened this issue Mar 25, 2016 · 7 comments
Open

Remove opal-activesupport dependency? #135

wied03 opened this issue Mar 25, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

@wied03
Copy link
Contributor

wied03 commented Mar 25, 2016

React-opal has this as well. If it's possible to remove it (like opal-browser) such that it's only included if higher level code needs it, that might help keep the core GEM lean.

@ajjahn
Copy link
Collaborator

ajjahn commented Mar 28, 2016

@wied03 If opal-activesupport were any where near the size of ruby active support, I'd definitely agree with you. But opal-activesupport is still quite lean. In fact older versions of react.rb implemented a handful of core extensions that I moved into the opal-activesupport gem to avoid multiple implementations of the same core ext.

@wied03
Copy link
Contributor Author

wied03 commented Mar 28, 2016

Might be a fair point. How small is small though? And will opal-activesupport stay that way?

Maybe as a compromise, getting rid of require 'active_support' from top_level.rb so that the active support requires are more granular might be a good goal. That way active support can grow but the served script to the browser with React.rb doesn't necessarily grow.

I know some files already do a granular require but the top level one is there.

@ajjahn
Copy link
Collaborator

ajjahn commented Mar 29, 2016

@wied03 I managed to compile all of active support into ~13k. It is quite possible never versions of active support would implement more or it's ruby counter part. I think you are correct to suggest simply being deliberate in only requiring extensions that are needed. That should protect against a growing size as AS matures.

@catmando
Copy link
Collaborator

again the suggestion of either a basic vs. full version would answer this, or somehow making it configurable.

@wied03
Copy link
Contributor Author

wied03 commented Mar 29, 2016

For this one I don't think you need a basic or full react.gem. it's just a
matter of a couple more granular requires.

sent from my mobile device
On Mar 29, 2016 07:52, "Mitch VanDuyn" [email protected] wrote:

again the suggestion of either a basic vs. full version would answer this,
or somehow making it configurable.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#135 (comment)

@ajjahn
Copy link
Collaborator

ajjahn commented Mar 29, 2016

For this one I don't think you need a basic or full react.gem. it's just a
matter of a couple more granular requires.

Exactly. AS isn't providing features to the user here. It's just allowing us to avoid recoding the wheel. Really, the more we lean on AS (and only require what which we need), the better. Users who include AS in their projects will benefit from the overlap.

@sollycatprint
Copy link

This issue was moved to ruby-hyperloop/hyper-react#135

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants