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

jfsiii opened this Issue Sep 10, 2012 · 5 comments


None yet
4 participants

jfsiii commented Sep 10, 2012

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?


rvagg commented Sep 10, 2012


wilmoore commented Sep 10, 2012

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.


fat commented Sep 11, 2012

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

@fat fat closed this Sep 11, 2012


jfsiii commented Sep 11, 2012

@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.


fat commented Sep 14, 2012

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