I tried to run some sample code that only had 2 require statements at the top for flatiron and ecstatic. When I ran it, however, I got a stack trace and this message:
flatiron.plugins.http requires the `union` module from npm
install using `npm install union`.
Did we leave union out on purpose or is it an oversight?
I think it was intentional, since you can use flatiron without union for things like cli interfaces. However, I'd be a all for changing this.
Either way: Which example is this? Is it in the readme? If so, it should get fixed.
I was looking for docs on flatiron as a whole and setting up static files as a part of an app. Checked out http-server and saw it used ecstatic. Looked at ecstatic https://github.com/jesusabdullah/node-ecstatic and I was running the flatiron docs there.
Oh, bravo for the quick response way in the AM on a Saturday night.
Yeah, well, I just happened to be up late. XD
Yeah, that flatiron example was contributed from outside and I guess I missed that part. Thanks for the heads-up.
fwiw the ecstatic example should be fixed.
There is also broomstick which I stumbled upon the other day. @jesusabdullah you should check it out. I can't speak to the improvements vs. ecstatic http://github.com/ecto/broomstick
I think this could be greatly improved in the flatiron create command as well on the CLI. Such as:
# Create a CLI app won't include union in
# generated package.json
flatiron create <app-name> --cli
# Default should be HTTP server-side app and will include union
# in generated package.json
flatiron create <app-name>
Ecstatic appears to be more complex and take on more features. That said, I kinda like the broomstick api. Is that connect-compatible? I want ecstatic to do that now.
[dist api refactor] Improve `flatiron create` command to support both…
… HTTP and CLI apps. Fixes #15