Deprecate @storybook/polymer

[gugadev]

Looking at the present and future, I think holding the @storybook/polymer name is not very accurate anymore. In fact, that package is compatible with any native web components wrapper like lit-element, haunted, and so on (maybe stencil too).

For that reason I suggest change the name to @storybook/web-components or @storybook/custom-elements, it's more accurate than actual one. Same for @storybook/addon-web-components.

PD: I would help on those ackages 😃

[ndelangen]

I think that makes perfect sense TBH, We'd have to change some test names and maybe netlify sites names and such, but that's alls fairly straight forward.

Happy to accept your help offer @OWGUS!

Are you on our discord already?

[gugadev]

I think that makes perfect sense TBH, We'd have to change some test names and maybe netlify sites names and such, but that's alls fairly straight forward.

@ndelangen That's great.

Are you on our discord already?

Yeah! I just joined (username: osgusdev)!

[daKmoR]

So what should be the name?

• @storybook/web-components => probably used mostly by web component people
• @storybook/lit-html => technically it just uses lit-html to render html with properties
  ?

[shilman]

I vote web-components

[gugadev]

Yeah, is the most accurate name, IMO.

[ndelangen]

@gugadev would you open a PR?

[emilio-martinez]

I'd like to keep this open. 👋

[gugadev]

Keep it open, currently I'm very busy but I'm working on the PR!

[bashmish]

So what should be the name?

• @storybook/web-components => probably used mostly by web component people
• @storybook/lit-html => technically it just uses lit-html to render html with properties
  ?

@storybook/lit-html is a more accurate name for what it does.

[shilman]

We have a @storybook/web-components now. Is anything further needed here? Should we deprecate this package somehow in 6.0? cc @ndelangen @daKmoR

[ndelangen]

Yeah I think it's better to continue with web-components only in the long term.

Do you agree @daKmoR ?

[daKmoR]

jup, I agree - only polymer 2 (superseded by polymer 3 & lit-element) applications would still need it - HTML imports are not going to happen and that is the only reason you would stick with @storybook/polymer.

[ndelangen]

Shall we just not update app/polymer anymore (and therefore remove it from the monorepo in 6.0.0) ?

[shilman]

YES PLEASE! 🙏

[ndelangen]

consider it done, kinda sorry for @kroeder 's efforts to migrate it to TS

[shilman]

it'll go to storybook-eol repo?

[ndelangen]

I'd have to extract it out, I don't know if I can do that preserving history, and all.

It will take more time. And for what gain exactly?

[shilman]

Probably into its own repo with a big fat deprecation warning at the top of the README. We can't just start deleting packages without warning. We need to deprecate the packages and give users time to migrate off. This means that for some amount of time, users need to be able to submit bugfixes or security fixes. I don't care if we have the git history preserved -- if people really want they can check the monorepo.

[ndelangen]

https://github.com/storybookjs/polymer

[shilman]

Yee-haw!! I just released https://github.com/storybookjs/storybook/releases/tag/v6.0.0-alpha.1 containing PR #9596 that references this issue. Upgrade today to try it out!

You can find this prerelease on the @next NPM tag.

Closing this issue. Please re-open if you think there's still more to do.