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

New architecture #1664

Closed
wants to merge 160 commits into from
Closed

New architecture #1664

wants to merge 160 commits into from

Conversation

@paulmillr
Copy link
Member

paulmillr commented Feb 4, 2017

No description provided.

@shvaikalesh shvaikalesh added the wip label Feb 4, 2017
@shvaikalesh shvaikalesh changed the title New workers Refactor workers & Brunch startup & introduce JS API Feb 15, 2017
shvaikalesh added 2 commits Sep 11, 2017
# Conflicts:
#	.travis.yml
#	lib/utils/config-validate.js
#	lib/utils/helpers.js
#	lib/utils/plugin-adapter.js
#	lib/utils/plugins.js
#	lib/watch.js
#	lib/workers/index.js
#	lib/workers/job-processor.js
#	lib/workers/jobs.js
#	lib/workers/manager.js
#	package.json
@paulmillr paulmillr removed the needs rebase label Sep 11, 2017
@alexkreidler
Copy link

alexkreidler commented Oct 1, 2017

I am wondering if this will bring support for alternate bundlers like Rollup.

If we were to support Rollup, it would need some changes in the pipeline architecture. Since Rollup really shines with ES6 modules and tree-shaking, we would have some plugins run beforehand, and some (like Babel) run after the bundle is generated. Also, I wonder if Rollup would have better or worse performance than deppack. I'm not sure what types of optimizations they have done as far as atomic rebuilding.

It would be interesting to define a bundler API, that any new bundler could implement.

If I can help in any way, just ping me. I'm very excited to see what 3.0 brings!

@StarpTech
Copy link

StarpTech commented Dec 12, 2017

Hi, what's the status of this PR?

@alexkreidler
Copy link

alexkreidler commented Jul 24, 2018

Any updates on this PR and version 3.0? Is the project still under development/being maintained?

@jacksonrayhamilton
Copy link
Contributor

jacksonrayhamilton commented Jul 24, 2018

@tim15 I guess the entire Brunch team must have been eaten by wolves on the same night. What a shame, I liked this project.

@paulmillr
Copy link
Member Author

paulmillr commented Jul 26, 2018

Unfortunately we are focusing on more value creation; through other projects — at this particular moment. Sad we cannot spend more time with Brunch. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

@kavdev
Copy link

kavdev commented Jan 12, 2019

@paulmillr has that changed at all? What needs to be done to get this merged?

@clarknelson
Copy link

clarknelson commented Jul 1, 2019

when are we getting this bad boy

@paulmillr
Copy link
Member Author

paulmillr commented Jul 1, 2019

The status is simple: someone needs to take it over and finish the work (at least ~1 month 2h every day).

@seanstrom
Copy link

seanstrom commented Aug 10, 2019

@paulmillr What would be needed to work on to finish the work? Was there a feature list for 3.0, or a breaking change list?

@paulmillr
Copy link
Member Author

paulmillr commented Aug 11, 2019

@seanstrom do you want to work on it? We can discuss this together. The idea is: an ultra-modern build tool that keeps Brunch simplicity, and increases it — while having everything required for 2020 web app dev.

@seanstrom
Copy link

seanstrom commented Aug 11, 2019

@paulmillr Yeah I would like to work on this. What's currently missing from Brunch that would be needed for 2020 app development? An example feature could be Code Splitting, or would that be something that is configured with a plugin?

@paulmillr
Copy link
Member Author

paulmillr commented Aug 12, 2019

Code splitting indeed! We need to have first-class support for that.

I think there should be some ways to simplify the config even more, and incorporate threading aka workers. This may increase the build speed 3x. We’d also want some kind of persistent file system caching, to increase speed of cold builds.

One commonly requested feature is an ability to easily replace script and css paths inside index.html with git commit hashes or similar suffixes.

Cache & workers are simple. Conceptual changes, script path updates are harder.

@paulmillr
Copy link
Member Author

paulmillr commented Aug 26, 2019

I want to release a version that keeps compatibility, while reducing the package size twice or more. See #1848. It will be named 3.0; the current PR is deferring until we figure out the requirements.

@paulmillr paulmillr changed the title 3.0 New architecture Aug 26, 2019
@paulmillr
Copy link
Member Author

paulmillr commented Nov 3, 2019

Alright, we have a stable build in pull request #1848. Let's move over there.

@paulmillr paulmillr closed this Nov 3, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

You can’t perform that action at this time.