Publish rx-lite to NPM

[Zolmeister]

Documentation here suggests there should be an npm package for rx-lite
https://github.com/Reactive-Extensions/RxJS/blob/master/doc/libraries/rx.lite.md

However, it does not seem to have been published yet.

Thanks.

[Zolmeister]

Update: The documentation has changed via 642f61b (@dotfold)

This is now simply a request to publish rx-lite on npm. This would allow client-side projects using webpack and browserify to use rx-lite easily

[dotfold]

As @mattpodwysocki asked me (when I asked the same question) what is the motivation for using rx-lite specifically?

[Zolmeister]

The answer is the same as why it even exists in the first place.
Minified + gzipped rx.lite.js (alone) the size is ~40% smaller than rx.all.js
You even reccomend using the lite version in the browser yourself (see npm readme).

Webpack and browserify have transformed the client-side landscape to include client-side js modules on npm a norm. In fact, the framework I'm working on (Zorium) depends entirely on a webpack npm pipeline.

[dotfold]

Browserify and webpack workflows were exactly what I was thinking of too. 👍

[jaredly]

But webpack and browserify will only bundle up what you require(). So you can just require("rx/path/to/rx-lite.js").
Is there another reason to have a separate npm package?

[Zolmeister]

@jaredly while it is possible to reach inside and grab it (the path is rx/dist/rx.lite.js), you are then creating an implicit dependency which would break if the path ever changed. Unless this was documented as the proper way to require it, I wouldn't expect any developer to feel safe doing something like that in production code.

(It's also messier; because the dependency exists in package.json then all developers on the project have to know never to use the regular module or risk creating an even worse file-size situation)

[Zolmeister]

Any update on this?

[Zolmeister]

@jaredly @dotfold

[mattpodwysocki]

@Zolmeister Question. Would you prefer rx-lite published as well as rx-lite-compat. In addition, would it then make sense to have a rx-lite.extras and a rx-lite-extras.compat as well? That's what I'm planning on publishing today.

[Zolmeister]

@mattpodwysocki Personally I only plan on using rx-lite, and am unclear what rx-lite.extras adds past just using rx. But of course if it's not too much trouble there is no downside to adding all of them.

[mattpodwysocki]

@Zolmeister well, they should be all in there respectively:

• rx-lite
• rx-lite-compat
• rx-lite-extras
• rx-lite-extras-compat

Let me know if you have any issues there

[Zolmeister]

Awesome, thanks!