Support requirejs

[totty90]

No description provided.

[tjmehta]

Was waiting for this haha. So thought a little about this and I think I want to avoid shims in all the files that support all the different types of requires, because I think it would add a large percentage of useless lines to the repo (making each file that larger to app users).

So I'm think about a build step to duplicate logic into a /requirejs folder.. But that has the downside of doubling the initial download size for developers. I'll debate it out for a bit and come up with a solution this weekend?

Are there any goto strategies for using common-js modules with requirejs?

Ideas welcome. :)

[jrf0110]

I would probably install requirejs as a dependency, then on postinstall do something like:

./node_modules/requirejs/bin/r.js *.js dist/requirejs/

That way the requirejs files are built upon installing 101. Then they can setup their require.config to just point to 101/dist/requirejs

[jfsiii]

As @jrf0110 points out, requirejs can consume and convert CommonJS modules, so you can keep authoring in CommonJS and let another tool post-process them to AMD.

IMO, requirejs would go in devDependencies as it's not required by all users. Also, the run script (postinstall, build-amd, etc) can just be something like r.js *.js dist/requirejs/ since npm-cli ensures the correct path for npm installed packages.

[tjmehta]

If there is an already officially supported work-around for using CommonJS modules with require.js. How much of a help is it to bundle it into this module? Should I just add instructions in the Readme?

[totty90]

A little bit offtopic but I just moved to webpack and I'm really happier than require.js. Everything is better than require.js. Setup takes some time, but is doable and worth!

[stoeffel]

In underscore.string we use browserify to build a version of it, which can be consumed in requireJs or as a standalone script (with a global variable). Checkout https://github.com/epeli/underscore.string/blob/master/gulpfile.js#L22.
Maybe this approach would be a solution for 101 too.

[tjmehta]

Closing this for now, bc original author is satisfied without this feature. Also, noone else has requested this.