Conversation
|
oh no! why? |
We won't need to ship separate npm packages because of this: rescript-lang/rescript#8379 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Undoing the monorepo would allow to have have a structure quite similar to what it was before, just with extracted "base" types. Now we should really think about how we want to call these base types (Base.DOM, BaseDOM, other?). I'm wondering if we couldn't come up with an even smarter structure with the features.
Edit: I'm quite excited to see we're close to finally reach the alpha haha
| module Animation = Animation | ||
| module AnimationEffect = AnimationEffect | ||
| module CSSRuleList = CSSRuleList | ||
| module CSSStyleDeclaration = CSSStyleDeclaration | ||
| module CSSStyleSheet = CSSStyleSheet | ||
| module CSSStyleValue = CSSStyleValue | ||
| module CaretPosition = CaretPosition | ||
| module CharacterData = CharacterData |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we didn't nest modules like this in the previous "plain" repo structure, did we?
|
|
||
| Examples: | ||
|
|
||
| - `src/DOM/Types.res` -> `src/DOM/DomTypes.res` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We had FileAPI, DOMAPI, etc originally, shouldn't we keep the same structure and call it DOMTypes, DOMGlobal, etc?
| - `src/DOM/Types.res` -> `src/DOM/DomTypes.res` | ||
| - `src/DOM/Global.res` -> `src/DOM/DomGlobal.res` | ||
| - `src/Fetch/Global.res` -> `src/Fetch/FetchGlobal.res` | ||
| - `src/Base/Event.res` -> `src/Base/BaseEvent.res` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The most common dependency will be DOM.element, this would now become BaseDOM.element, are we sure about this? Another possibility is to create nested modules with aliases so Base.DOM.element.
3 participants
No description provided.