Storybook: Deprecate @storybook/polymer
Looking at the present and future, I think holding the @storybook/polymer name is not very accurate anymore. In fact, that package is compatible with any native web components wrapper like lit-element, haunted, and so on (maybe stencil too).
For that reason I suggest change the name to @storybook/web-components or @storybook/custom-elements, it's more accurate than actual one. Same for @storybook/addon-web-components.
PD: I would help on those ackages 馃槂
gugadev
All 20 comments
I think that makes perfect sense TBH, We'd have to change some test names and maybe netlify sites names and such, but that's alls fairly straight forward.
Happy to accept your help offer @owgus!
Are you on our discord already?
ndelangen
on 22 Mar 2019
I think that makes perfect sense TBH, We'd have to change some test names and maybe netlify sites names and such, but that's alls fairly straight forward.
@ndelangen That's great.
Are you on our discord already?
Yeah! I just joined (username: osgusdev)!
gugadev
on 22 Mar 2019
So what should be the name?
@storybook/web-components=> probably used mostly by web component people@storybook/lit-html=> technically it just uses lit-html to render html with properties
?
daKmoR
on 8 Apr 2019
I vote web-components
shilman
on 8 Apr 2019
Yeah, is the most accurate name, IMO.
gugadev
on 10 Apr 2019
@gugadev would you open a PR?
ndelangen
on 6 May 2019
I'd like to keep this open. 馃憢
emilio-martinez
on 28 May 2019
Keep it open, currently I'm very busy but I'm working on the PR!
gugadev
on 1 Jun 2019
So what should be the name?
@storybook/web-components=> probably used mostly by web component people@storybook/lit-html=> technically it just uses lit-html to render html with properties
?
@storybook/lit-html is a more accurate name for what it does.
bashmish
on 22 Jul 2019
We have a @storybook/web-components now. Is anything further needed here? Should we deprecate this package somehow in 6.0? cc @ndelangen @daKmoR
shilman
on 16 Jan 2020
Yeah I think it's better to continue with web-components only in the long term.
Do you agree @daKmoR ?
ndelangen
on 21 Jan 2020
jup, I agree - only polymer 2 (superseded by polymer 3 & lit-element) applications would still need it - HTML imports are not going to happen and that is the only reason you would stick with @storybook/polymer.
daKmoR
on 21 Jan 2020
Shall we just not update app/polymer anymore (and therefore remove it from the monorepo in 6.0.0) ?
ndelangen
on 21 Jan 2020
YES PLEASE! 馃檹
shilman
on 21 Jan 2020
consider it done, kinda sorry for @kroeder 's efforts to migrate it to TS
ndelangen
on 21 Jan 2020
it'll go to storybook-eol repo?
shilman
on 21 Jan 2020
I'd have to extract it out, I don't know if I can do that preserving history, and all.
It will take more time. And for what gain exactly?
ndelangen
on 21 Jan 2020
Probably into its own repo with a big fat deprecation warning at the top of the README. We can't just start deleting packages without warning. We need to deprecate the packages and give users time to migrate off. This means that for some amount of time, users need to be able to submit bugfixes or security fixes. I don't care if we have the git history preserved -- if people really want they can check the monorepo.
shilman
on 21 Jan 2020
ndelangen
on 22 Jan 2020
Yee-haw!! I just released https://github.com/storybookjs/storybook/releases/tag/v6.0.0-alpha.1 containing PR #9596 that references this issue. Upgrade today to try it out!
You can find this prerelease on the @next NPM tag.
Closing this issue. Please re-open if you think there's still more to do.
shilman
on 23 Jan 2020
Related issues
MrOrz
路
3Comments
levithomason
路
3Comments
tirli
路
3Comments
alexanbj
路
3Comments
wahengchang
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
I vote web-components