What is the use case for allowing registration different modules under the
same name? IMO should be an error.
jjb


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:32 PM, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:

> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Marius Gundersen <gundersen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So then there would be two versions of the same module, and a module
> could get access to both these modules at the same time. For example, if
> ModuleB, which depends on ModuleA is loaded and linked, and later ModuleA
> is redefined, then ModuleC could depend on both ModuleB and ModueA, and
> would get (indirect) access to two versions of ModuleA. Is this problem
> preventable?
>
> It's important to be able to modify module registration for things like
> polyfilling. But that doesn't mean it's something people should do in
> general. Note that Jason only gave you an answer in the context of the
> basic module loader semantics; he didn't say what will happen in the HTML
> semantics. In particular, we can make it an error for there to be two
> definitions of the same module name in the same HTML, a la:
>
>   <script type="module" name="jquery" src="jquery1.js"></script>
>   <script type="module" name="jquery" src="jquery2.js"></script>
>
> I'm inclined to call that an error, and require imperative modifications
> of existing module registrations to use imperative code.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140127/6aa6b623/attachment-0001.html>

What is the use case for allowing registration different modules under the
same name? IMO should be an error.