Add an example project using Parcel JS

[jstarry]

Problem

https://parceljs.org/ can be used to build / package a Yew-based webapp but we don't have an example for doing so yet

Solution

Review https://github.com/spielrs/yew-parcel-template and possibly move / fork it under the yewstack org

[hgzimmerman]

I believe that @dancespiele has some working code using parcel (https://gitter.im/yewframework/Lobby?at=5db2102fa3f0b17849820526)

I don't know the state that their code is in (eg. public, private, public but modified to the point its not usable in a minimal example), but they might have something that could be pared down to a minimal example.

https://github.com/rustwasm/rust-parcel-template Would also be a logical place to start.

[jstarry]

Thanks @hgzimmerman! I created this issue before realizing that they already created the template: https://github.com/spielrs/yew-parcel-template

[dancespiele]

@jstarry I think already you have seen the template that I created based in https://github.com/rustwasm/rust-parcel-template . I'm worry how the restricted is Apache license, I don't know a lot about it. Maybe I can create another repository which is not based in that rust-parcel-template with only MIT license. What do you think?

[hgzimmerman]

INAL, but https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rationale-of-apache-dual-licensing/8952/2 provides a quick overview for the use of the dual license within rust, and by extension, the broader community building on top of rust.

In short, MIT + clause about patent infringement == Apache 2.0; AFAIK.

No one stands to lose anything by dual-licensing w/ Apache, as if someone is involved in a patent dispute, they can still use the software under MIT. Yew doesn't have any patents, and I don't think the creators of the templates are using any patents in their templates - I think the Apache 2.0 license inclusion is strictly just for maximizing license compatibility with libraries in the ecosystem.

---

I think you are free to remove the Apache license should you choose to (because you, as someone deriving something from their software are free to either or both MIT, or Apache), but since it doesn't really bind the users of your software to anything more than MIT, I don't see why you would want to remove it.

[dancespiele]

ok thanks for the information then I will keep the dual license

[siku2]

Since Trunk seems to be the way forward for Yew and the popularity of wasm-bindgen has given rise to plenty of tutorials and examples on the subject already, I don't think we still need this today.