Publish to npm about whirl HOT 7 CLOSED

Hey @apinnecke

Understandably publishing to npm would be a benefit but I'm not sure I follow as to why it's required to make browserify work. Could you elaborate on this? Why does the way in which the package is installed affect how browserify behaves with it? It would only be package.json that would make any difference no? The same files would be pulled in regardless of the command I use(ignoring versioning).

As for renaming, I've not got any ideas yet. But, an npm package could be named something like whirl-css or whirl-loader or something along those lines.

I am actually due to revamp whirl completely. I have several loading animation sitting in a bookmarked jsbin haha.

@jh3y

from whirl.

make browserify based builds work

Is a bit misleading here, you're totally right.

It's not "required", it's just inconvenient currently. At the moment one has to refer to the GitHub repo for installation, which a) requires git to install npm dependencies (which one might not want to have, e.g. in a Docker container) and b) disables several caching layers of npm.

whirl-loader sounds awesome. 👍

from whirl.

Hey @apinnecke .

I'm sorry, I never got round to publishing whirl. The rework is still on my todo list as the list of prototyped loaders I've created has grown.

I think the best bet is for me to publish under an npm scope. Therefore something like;

npm install @jh3y/whirl

Definitely falling into my plans with it being #hacktoberfest 🎃

@jh3y

from whirl.

How's it going with the publishing?

from whirl.

Hey @mebibou 👋

To be honest, I still need to do this 😅 I've been considering renaming the repo/project so it has a unique name on the npm registry and doesn't need to use a scope like @jh3y/whirl.

I'm not sure on the implications of publishing as @jh3y/whirl for now so that it can be used, then renaming the project and republishing as something else. I'm sure that's likely to be fine 👌

I also really need to get the rework branch published 😅 It's got many more loading animations. I've just been busy with other things.

UPDATE:: Seems the "best" thing to do might be to publish with @jh3y/whirl and then deprecate when it comes to it if I can come up with a better name 👍

@jh3y

from whirl.

yeah I think scoping is fine, and it's easy to do on the npm registry (free for open source projects). thanks!

from whirl.

I've just published this from the CLI using @jh3y/whirl 👍

Should be available as 1.0.5. I had to bump the version a couple of times. I was unaware the new default was restricted and not public for scoped modules. I will try to spend some time on the rework branch and get that merged in as there's much more in there.

from whirl.