vex.combined and AMD about vex HOT 11 CLOSED

This is now in the docs.

from vex.

Can you be more specific about what you mean when you you can't make it work with requireJS?

Including vex.js and vex.dialog.js (in that order) should be equivalent to including vex.combined.js.

from vex.

It does work by including vex and vex.dialog separately. But I can't not make it work using vex.combined. when using vex.combined only the main vex object get exposed but not vex.dialog. is this a known bug ?

from vex.

Still hoping to get that figured out if i have to go to production with this.. Are you aware of this issue or I am doing something wrong.

from vex.

Sorry, my previous statement was incorrect. The vex.combined.min.js file has two define statements in it, so it cannot be used with RequireJS. We will add a note to the docs stating this.

If your goal is to use vex.dialog, you should be able to just require that, since it itself requires vex. If you need to use both vex and vex.dialog, you'll need to require them separately. There really would be no good way of requiring them as a single statement since they are separate modules. Hope this helps!

from vex.

Ok thanks, would love to seem the AMD version only expose one object tho

from vex.

@m4nuC can you elaborate?

from vex.

I meant just having one object exposed in the vex.combined.min to make it usable when using AMD. Obviously not a big deal but that would to me look a bit nicer in my list of dependencies.

from vex.

Unfortunately (and @zackbloom or @timmfin please correct me if i'm wrong), I believe the only way to accomplish this would be to actually combine the source code of vex.coffee and vex.dialog.coffee, thus limiting others' ability to depend on only one or the other separately.

Generalized, this is an interesting AMD question, and one I'd certainly like an answer to: Can one structure her code such that modules A and B (in which B depends on A) can be required as a single module C or individually as modules A and B respectively? If you figure it out, please report back and let us know. 😉

from vex.

Well can't module C require B (which require A) and then just expose a C module that can itself expose B module through a member on itself ? I would try it out but I am not exactly a coffee scripter :(

from vex.

That sounds reasonable. I can give it shot next week. Thanks!

from vex.