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

Add gulp as build system to generate UMD wrapper also for extensions #1482

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

xhaggi
Copy link
Contributor

@xhaggi xhaggi commented Jun 6, 2023

This adds a minimal build system based on gulp.js to add a UMD wrapper, minify and gzip the source files, including all extensions.

Related issue #1469

@matsp
Copy link

matsp commented Jun 29, 2023

I think the project would really benefit from this PR - I was already on the way to do a PR myself after discovering that extensions are not minified. When gulp is not minimal enough, we could run uglify over all distributed files?

@alexpetros
Copy link
Collaborator

Incorporating a build system into htmx has been discussed extensively, and then ultimately rejected. See here for some of that discussion:

It looks like there's a reasonable workaround too? #1469 (comment)

The question of minifying/UMDing the extensions is a fair one. I would suggest opening an issue dedicated to it and then we can discuss the best way to handle that. I know there's some possible willingness to at least automating the UMD situation, but it's a slightly touchy subject, so a PR can't really happen until we have some consensus on that.

@alexpetros alexpetros closed this Jul 17, 2023
@gnat
Copy link
Contributor

gnat commented Aug 17, 2023

image

lol

@xhaggi
Copy link
Contributor Author

xhaggi commented Aug 17, 2023

@gnat what are you trying to tell us?

@matsp
Copy link

matsp commented Aug 17, 2023

He is telling us that the he does not understand the PR at all.

@matsp
Copy link

matsp commented Aug 17, 2023

@xhaggi maybe we should provide a fork which code is identical but with your PR content?

@xhaggi
Copy link
Contributor Author

xhaggi commented Aug 17, 2023

@matsp That would certainly not be the right way to go, nor is it my intention.

@matsp
Copy link

matsp commented Aug 17, 2023

Sure it's not the right way. This library is getting more and more attraction and thus people will ask about this PR. Providing just a pull solution to import in their projects will lead to the right amount of pressure in the maintainer team to think about it.
I don't really want to fork away, it's just about a alternative solution till this team is ready to change their minds.

@andryyy
Copy link

andryyy commented Aug 17, 2023

Imo it's still the correct decision.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants