Preliminary draft of ES-Harmony modules proposal
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:00 PM, <ihab.awad at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
Kris Kowal and I plan to present a proposal for ES-Harmony modules in the upcoming Mountain View meeting. In the interests of giving everyone a chance to read through our ideas ahead of time, we are sharing a draft of our document, which is a work in progress:
Since the above post was made, Ihab and Kris' proposal has become what seems to be the leading proposal in the ServerJS project. The appeal appears to be almost unanimous.
wiki.mozilla.org/ServerJS/Modules/SecurableModules
groups.google.com/group/serverjs/browse_frm/thread/d2dc85a2725992be
The ServerJS project is a bright light in the server-side JavaScript world. Knowing sooner than later if this module idea is appealing to the ECMAScript group would be useful information.
Peter
[I'm having mail server issues, so I apologize if this message doesn't thread appropriately.]
Peter Michaux wrote:
The ServerJS project is a bright light in the server-side JavaScript world. Knowing sooner than later if this module idea is appealing to the ECMAScript group would be useful information.
We had a good conversation about modules at the January meeting, but it's still early to make any predictions. Initial reactions were pretty positive, and I think many committee members are in favor of working on a module system, but speaking for myself, I'm not ready to commit to a particular design yet. I like many aspects of Ihab and Kris's proposal, but not all.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Dave Herman <dherman at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
I like many aspects of Ihab and Kris's proposal, but not all.
For example which parts do you like or dislike? The reason I ask, it would be great if the ServerJS project could use a reasonably liked subset of the proposal. The ServerJS discussions are using only a small part of the whole Ihab & Kris proposal. Mainly modules have a scope, "exports" object and a "require" function.
Peter
I'm afraid I haven't had enough time to think all of this through yet.
I feel that there are a few areas where we can separate some concerns
and produce more orthogonal proposals. I'll be sure to post as soon as
I have my thoughts together more.
I understand you would like to move ServerJS in a direction that's
compatible with Harmony, but Harmony modules are just not in a state
where people can make commitments yet.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Peter Michaux <petermichaux at gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Dave Herman <dherman at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
I like many aspects of Ihab and Kris's proposal, but not all.
For example which parts do you like or dislike?
Speaking for myself, one problem I see is that the proposal leaves interaction across modules using standard faciliities like Array and Object unspecified. It also leaves loader underspecified for use cases that fetch over the Web (in important one imho), because it doesn't handle things like Cookie and Authentication headers.
There's a little too much pushing of complexity onto users of the proposal.
Kris Kowal and I plan to present a proposal for ES-Harmony modules in the upcoming Mountain View meeting. In the interests of giving everyone a chance to read through our ideas ahead of time, we are sharing a draft of our document, which is a work in progress:
docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfgxb7gk_34gpk37z9v
See you all in MTV!