In order to fully leverage cdns like https://unpkg.com/ or https://www.jsdelivr.com/, we need to have a nice npm package published.
There's still some confusion with the current clay package, as it pretty much brings only css.
For these reasons, I'm proposing:
clay to clay-cssclay package that exposes the compiled css and js bundling all components and resourcesUnless someone heavily disagrees, I'll send a PR with these changes later ;)
/cc @matuzalemsteles, @julien, @carloslancha, @pat270
Fair warning, @bryceosterhaus, @mthadley, as this might affect you... what are you currently using and how?
@jbalsas I'm totally OK with that proposition.
We are bundling the CSS from the current clay package. More specifically, we are depending on the includePaths export from the package, and passing that to sass-loader.
So for us, this would be a breaking change, and we would need to instead depend on this new clay-css package. Thankfully, this seems like it wouldn't be much trouble for us to fix.
Would it might make sense for this clay distributable package to include sources... specially scss and ES+ which could be rebundled from the different individual packages, or is it better to assume the breaking change?
After all, you won't be needing the rest of things in there...
I don't think the breaking change is a big deal for us. Also, it should lead to a more cleanly organized set of packages, right?
That's what I think, yeah... we would have:
clay -> For distribution purposes only and usage through cdnclay-css -> CSS framework and implementationclay-* -> UI components (js + soy + webcomponents)Does that make sense? Is there any other way this would be more easily understandable?
This has been done and published as rc.12 to verify. @mthadley, can you guys check if switching to clay-css keeps working the same way for you?
Thanks!
Most helpful comment
That's what I think, yeah... we would have:
clay-> For distribution purposes only and usage through cdnclay-css-> CSS framework and implementationclay-*-> UI components (js + soy + webcomponents)Does that make sense? Is there any other way this would be more easily understandable?