Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider switching to ecstatic #55

Closed
addyosmani opened this Issue Apr 1, 2014 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
Owner

addyosmani commented Apr 1, 2014

@phated notes that gulp-connect is a blacklisted module and suggests using connect directly. He suggests using ecstatic instead.

Owner

sindresorhus commented Apr 1, 2014

Why? How is it better than connect?

phated commented Apr 1, 2014

@sindresorhus last I understood, it is a streaming static webserver and connect isn't (connect might have changed). Also, it is a smaller dependency vs all of connect.

Contributor

AveVlad commented Apr 3, 2014

Contributor

jonkemp commented Apr 9, 2014

The recommendation is not to use gulp-connect and just use the connect module instead. It's the whole don't create a plugin if it's not necessary thing.

It would look something like this without using gulp-connect. This starts a server with connect and connect-livereload.

gulp.task('connect-livereload', function() {
    var app = connect()
        .use(require('connect-livereload')({ port: 35729 }))
        .use(connect.static('app'))
        .use(connect.directory('app'));

    http.createServer(app).listen(9000);
});

Then you could use gulp-livereload to run livereload on your changed files in your watch tasks.

I'm happy to submit a pull request for it.

Owner

sindresorhus commented Apr 9, 2014

@jonkemp my point exactly. PR welcome :D

Owner

sindresorhus commented Apr 13, 2014

fixed in c77aa2c

SBoudrias pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 15, 2016

Merge pull request #55 from felquis/generatedImagesDir
Add to compass task generated images path
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment