Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Loading type=systemjs-module scripts. Resolves #2002. #2015

Merged
merged 11 commits into from Sep 2, 2019
Merged

Loading type=systemjs-module scripts. Resolves #2002. #2015

merged 11 commits into from Sep 2, 2019

Conversation

joeldenning
Copy link
Collaborator

See #2002

guybedford
guybedford reviewed Sep 1, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@guybedford guybedford left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice to see this.

src/features/script-load.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/features/script-load.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/features/script-load.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/features/script-load.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/features/script-load.js Show resolved Hide resolved
@joeldenning joeldenning changed the title Loading of script type=systemjs-module scripts. Resolves #2002. Loading type=systemjs-module scripts. Resolves #2002. Sep 1, 2019
@joeldenning
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@guybedford I just updated this with your feedback

@guybedford
Copy link
Member

The only other thing I am wondering here is if we should do an immediate run of the function when SystemJS executes to ensure the request is sent out asap. System.import calls are self-deduping so there's no risk in double loading. I tend to think trying to give the best network perf is a good idea.

Then we should also add some docs on this too.

@joeldenning
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ah yeah, good idea about immediately running it. I'll add that and also some docs.

guybedford
guybedford reviewed Sep 1, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@guybedford guybedford left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some final notes, then I think we're good to go.

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
joeldenning and others added 3 commits September 1, 2019 16:26
@joeldenning @guybedford
Update README.md
e081ddb 
Co-Authored-By: Guy Bedford <guybedford@gmail.com>
@joeldenning @guybedford
Update README.md
0cc8018 
Co-Authored-By: Guy Bedford <guybedford@gmail.com>
@joeldenning @guybedford
Update README.md
0e4fe5b 
Co-Authored-By: Guy Bedford <guybedford@gmail.com>
@joeldenning
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Updated

guybedford
guybedford approved these changes Sep 1, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@guybedford guybedford left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should probable merge this into a dev / feature branch before release due to the docs change.

@guybedford guybedford changed the base branch from master to 6.x September 2, 2019 16:45
@guybedford guybedford merged commit 1b5a2bd into 6.x Sep 2, 2019
@guybedford guybedford deleted the issue-2002 branch September 2, 2019 16:46
@guybedford
Copy link
Member

Merged in 6.x.

This was referenced Sep 2, 2019
Closed
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@guybedford guybedford guybedford approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
2 participants
@joeldenning @guybedford