This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 2, 2023. It is now read-only.
doc: update stage 2 regarding dynamic modules #242
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
As agreed upon in Dec 19th meeting
guybedford
reviewed
Dec 22, 2018
| @@ -68,6 +68,10 @@ These changes are implemented in https://github.com/nodejs/ecmascript-modules/pu | |||
| * Define semantics for determining when to load sources as CommonJS or ES module for both the top-level main (`node x.js`) and dependency loading. | |||
| - Proposal: [“File Specifier Resolution” proposal](https://github.com/GeoffreyBooth/node-import-file-specifier-resolution-proposal) covers `import` statements of ESM files; and CommonJS files, package entry point and package deep imports. | |||
|
|
|||
| * Implement specification changes related to dynamic module records | |||
| - Proposal: ["Dynamic Modules Proposal"](https://github.com/nodejs/dynamic-modules/) | |||
| - We will need to reach consensus on appropriate behavior for [`export * from dynamic module`](https://github.com/nodejs/dynamic-modules/pull/11) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add another point here please to indicate that dynamic modules should not block Phase 2 from shipping?
Something like:
- If consensus is not reached, dynamic modules will be carried over into a further phase.
jdalton
reviewed
Dec 22, 2018
| @@ -68,6 +68,10 @@ These changes are implemented in https://github.com/nodejs/ecmascript-modules/pu | |||
| * Define semantics for determining when to load sources as CommonJS or ES module for both the top-level main (`node x.js`) and dependency loading. | |||
| - Proposal: [“File Specifier Resolution” proposal](https://github.com/GeoffreyBooth/node-import-file-specifier-resolution-proposal) covers `import` statements of ESM files; and CommonJS files, package entry point and package deep imports. | |||
|
|
|||
| * Implement specification changes related to dynamic module records | |||
| - Proposal: ["Dynamic Modules Proposal"](https://github.com/nodejs/dynamic-modules/) | |||
| - We will need to reach consensus on appropriate behavior for [`export * from dynamic module`](https://github.com/nodejs/dynamic-modules/pull/11) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the added line for reaching consensus:
Would it make sense to add a blurb that throwing for export * from dynamic module isn't necessarily intended as a permanent addition and that, at a later time, the behavior could be reverted? Or is that better off in the dynamic-modules proposal?
|
If anyone want to add to this please feel free to push to the branch 😇
…On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 11:40 AM John-David Dalton ***@***.*** wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In doc/plan-for-new-modules-implementation.md
<#242 (comment)>:
> @@ -68,6 +68,10 @@ These changes are implemented in https://github.com/nodejs/ecmascript-modules/pu
* Define semantics for determining when to load sources as CommonJS or ES module for both the top-level main (`node x.js`) and dependency loading.
- Proposal: [“File Specifier Resolution” proposal](https://github.com/GeoffreyBooth/node-import-file-specifier-resolution-proposal) covers `import` statements of ESM files; and CommonJS files, package entry point and package deep imports.
+* Implement specification changes related to dynamic module records
+ - Proposal: ["Dynamic Modules Proposal"](https://github.com/nodejs/dynamic-modules/)
+ - We will need to reach consensus on appropriate behavior for [`export * from dynamic module`](nodejs/dynamic-modules#11)
On the added line for reaching consensus:
Would it make sense to add a blurb that throwing for export * from
dynamic module isn't necessarily intended as a permanent addition and
that, at a later time, the behavior could be reverted? Or is that better
off in the dynamic-modules proposal?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#242 (review)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecV9v0sbtE0PWqKL7VjMzNxf-jiWS8ks5u7mBigaJpZM4ZfVa3>
.
|
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As agreed upon in Dec 19th meeting