Skip to content
This repository

Address relationship, if any, to component/component #14

jfsiii opened this Issue September 09, 2012 · 5 comments

4 participants

John Schulz Jacob Rod Vagg Wil Moore III
John Schulz

Points in both #10 and #6 are, fundamentally, about this projects relationship to component/component.

Perhaps we could get a statement or paragraph about component in the README or FAQ?

Are the two mutually exclusive or is there any compatibility between, or alignment of, the projects?

Wil Moore III

Seems like bower and component(1) are complimentary and take on some of the same conventions. I wrote about component(1) (and a couple other tools) here:

Feel free to use it as a starting point. I will try to add bower to this write-up soon.


yep we share a lot of the same goals - @visionmedia's solution is a bit more tailored to a commonjs (global-less) style, while we're trying to be a bit more generic (not pick a transport, etc), and have others build on top of us. You can read more about it in the faq

Jacob fat closed this September 10, 2012
John Schulz

@fat The FAQ does not, afaict, address @visionmedia's component/component. I only see Jam, Volo and Ender.

I think the FAQ should at least address if bower's component.json format has any intention of aligning with component/component's component.json. That would help with the bug tickets which reference component/spec.

I think @visionmedia's comment on #6 is relevant here as well.


I've added a mention of component to the readme just now - but it's in the same boat with the others.

@visionmedia did a really good job explaining it in a hacker news comment i think - which was somethign to the effect of:

component/component is more a framework (which is trying to solve more problems)

whereas bower is something I think should be consumed by a framework

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.