[LRUG] resolving JS dependencies on deploy

[Mark Burns]

> onerous npm-derived asset preprocessing

I'm curious about this statement.
Is it that you are loathe to have to put in the groundwork now for little
benefit or that the asset pipeline is less onerous?

IMHO the tooling around the node ecosystem feels a lot more modern and
suited to the task than the cludgy asset pipeline.
Things like webpack, ES6, requirejs etc are fantastic for modern js
development.

Admittedly an upfront cost in tearing down everything if you only have a
little js. But then again easier and cheaper to do well earlier on.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:46 PM Tom Armitage <tom at infovore.org> wrote:

> TBH, I’m not fussed about it being gemified - it’s a single .js file,
> really - but I liked that rails-assets exposed a Ruby packaging mechanism
> to me, rather than wrapping a node one.
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Riccardo Cambiassi <bru at codewitch.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom,
>> I'm not sure it applies to your case, given your problem is with
>> licensing, but would it make sense to fetch the said gemified library from
>> a git(hub) clone repo?
>>
>>   R
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Tom Armitage <tom at infovore.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a Rails project with dependencies on a single external JS library
>>> that for reasons - primarily, licensing - I don’t want to include in my
>>> vendored libraries.
>>>
>>> Currently, I’ve been referencing it via Rails-Assets (
>>> https://github.com/rails-assets/rails-assets) which makes it available
>>> as a gem, and thus it’s bundled by the end-user at deployment time.
>>>
>>> Except: Rails-Assets is down, again, and the future of the project is
>>> feeling a tad suspect. So I’m asking for myself: what are my alternatives
>>> here?
>>>
>>> I am loathe to tear out my basic usage of asset-pipeline to replace it
>>> with some onerous npm-derived asset preprocessing (gulp, grunt, etc, etc,
>>> etc); I also really can’t include the library within my codebase, so need
>>> to find a way for it to be pulled down, both locally (for development) and
>>> on deployment via Capistrano.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts? How do you tend to do this?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chat mailing list
>>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>>> Manage your subscription:
>>> http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Riccardo CAMBIASSI
>> http://twitter.com/bru
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chat mailing list
>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Tom Armitage
> http://infovore.org
> 07813 060578
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20151119/5db515ed/attachment-0002.html>