fix(vite-plugin-angular): remove experimental support for .ng files #869
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for analog-docs ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for analog-app ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
❌ Deploy Preview for analog-ng-app failed.
|
✅ Deploy Preview for analog-blog ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
|
No! It's one of the most exciting features. Please leave it. |
|
I'm very interested in a digest of the contributors' gathered reflections on this highly public experimentation and the public response that resonated with all of you. I recognize that this closure and its time frame will signal in various directions. I appreciate these discussions as confirming the project's position relative to Angular. Thanks! |
Thanks @jaredasutton! It seems to be causing more confusion which is not what we want. We proposed it as a method of discussion and a way to experiment outside of pure theory. We said it was built using Angular underneath but isn't from the Angular team, and people still took it as an Angular team project. So if/when the Angular team does pursue this, there won't be any confusion about existing projects using .ng files. There's no denying that the idea/concept has momentum though, and we recognize that. Analog the project isn't going anywhere either. |
|
A sad news for #Angular & @analogjs with probable drop of .ng experiment which would fit there perfectly and could represent a gateway (or a great first step) on the learning journey for many newcomers! (and that is besides Analog being a great piece technology optimized for its use-case) Personally, I think its unfortunate as I perceive it as basically a misunderstanding caused by the framing / tone of the messaging coming mostly form the 3rd party which stirred a lot of intense responses... |
I agree with the above; I know it's shocking 😂. The concept of the file is correct. However, my issue is more with the way it was marketed. You've never seen it with Analog authoring, only Angular. Change the file extension and proceed with it as an analogue framework/authoring. This is nothing new. It's not as if Angular wasn't built to be adopted at its core and modified for different platforms. Look at how NativeScript was built on top of Angular. I think a new file name and clarification that when people from this project engage in any social media collaboration, it states "Analog authoring" and not solely "Angular" (which I believe is the real issue). |
|
@analogjs bot found a violation of project rule definitions. This PR can not be merged, because it stops innovation. |
|
Actually please merge this! It's only removing it from the angular plugin which is right approach. Move it to analog plugin itself. |
|
Joke aside, I love this experiment. Please continue. I would even go one step further than @Jordan-Hall. Please publish that as a third-party extension that works as preprocessor for @analogjs AND @angular. One could even think of a Schematics implementation to convert between the class-based default @angular format and this new markup, functional orientated. |
|
No need to make it angular though. Honestly you can leave it. Schematics is still easy to convert people with it being different |
|
fwiw, we could rename (or move it to an independent |
Exactly that's all I think most of us was saying |
|
I learned a lot only just by reading the source code that made possible the new .ng format in Analog, and I liked it. Wished this PR was opened on the 1st of April. Hope you guys just remove "experimental" part of this format, and not entirely |
I'm working on making for that a PR. Think what most forgot the lang suggested for template allowed just markdown for simple template |
|
@Jordan-Hall thanks, but no need for a PR. We've stated that we're not trying to reinvent the Angular compiler. If we move forward, it will be in a different direction. |
|
What you mean by different direction? Noticed you never removed the code to compile here just prevent people from seeing it. Kinda don't see how this is reinventing the compiler for angular |
|
:'( |
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Which package are you modifying?
What is the current behavior?
Experimental support for
.ngfiles was enabled through AnalogCloses #
What is the new behavior?
Support for
.ngfiles is removedDoes this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
This was experimental in supporting an alternate way of authoring Angular components and directives. Despite various disclaimers, the
.ngfile associated causes too much confusion that this is an Angular team project that intends to replace the usage of class components in Angular.[optional] What gif best describes this PR or how it makes you feel?