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

Be more precise about the origin of webcomponentsjs in bower.js #3843

Closed
bartolom opened this issue Aug 5, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

Be more precise about the origin of webcomponentsjs in bower.js #3843

bartolom opened this issue Aug 5, 2016 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@bartolom
Copy link

bartolom commented Aug 5, 2016

Description

The bower.json file uses a abbreviated version to reference webcomponentsjs
"webcomponentsjs": "^0.7.20"
It would be nice if it could be more precise about the origin of webcomponentsjs like
"webcomponentsjs": "webcomponents/webcomponentsjs#^0.7.20"

The reason is that I'm trying to make Polymer (and the Polymer Elements) work on Java/JVM micro services. In Java dependencies are usually not resolved with Bower but rather with tools like Maven or Gradle.

There is a nice project called https://webjars.org which bridges the JavaScript/Bower world with the Java/Maven/Gradle world. The above change makes the dependency more explicit and makes it easer for Java developers to create custom builds and use alternative repositories and forked versions of webcomponentsjs without causing ambiguity for the Java build system.

This issue is related to PolymerLabs/tedium#47

Steps to Reproduce

inspect: https://github.com/Polymer/polymer/blob/master/bower.json

Expected Results

"webcomponentsjs": "webcomponents/webcomponentsjs#^0.7.20"

Actual Results

"webcomponentsjs": "^0.7.20"

Browsers Affected

This does not affect browsers, but rather build system on the JVM like Maven and Gradle. It seems that it is less important for JavaScript which uses Bower for Polymer

Versions

  • Polymer: v1.6.1
  • webcomponents: v0.7.20
@TimvdLippe
Copy link
Contributor

@azakus This seems like a change that should be unharmful. WDYT?

@TimvdLippe
Copy link
Contributor

This has been fixed in #3844

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants