Centralized bucklescript bindings about index HOT 8 CLOSED

Centralized repo doesn't work for us. BS is a compiler so it has to compile every file. Plus some of them might have overlapping dependencies that don't resolve well.

The js dependencies should be modeled as actual package.json dependencies, not peerDependencies. For all we know, the implementation might have been gradually swapped out toward a pure bs impl. The natural deps deduping makes sure the user isn't requiring e.g. a react-router and a bs-react-router's different react-router.

For curation, we'd list a repo along with its stability. Everything under bs-* in npm, we can assume them to be from bucklescript. npm org also works but we don't have to do that immediately. BuckleTypes is the central org where you'll look for these things.

Authoring: I've got drafts that I haven't shared. Thanks for the reminder. Will do.

from index.

How do we keep typing and package versions in sync?

bs would still have all the files. it would pull bindings based on installed deps.

Not sure if a curated listing is needed when a tool pulls the bindings automatically.

from index.

The dep is modeled as a real dependency of the bindings. Unless you yourself also use that dep in a JS, and track master.

Pulling bindings and all seems like additional tooling and confusion points, I'm not sure about this. I'll let @ryyppy speak. Curation is still good though; it's what Reason's about too.

from index.

I see. I approached the problem from a point of view of an existing codebase.

from index.

After giving it a second thought, I really would like to play around with bucklescript bindings more before I can really tell which approach is the better fit... A lot of problems w/ e.g. flow-typed arised with the limitations of the typechecker itself... I think OCaml is much better in that regard, so the workflow around it might be completely different and renders all my believes & knowledge obsolete.

If there should be some tooling around it (maybe by just checking for BuckleTypes repositories instead of central repo), I would definitely consider following user-stories:

• I want to be able to version lock my dependency files (by checking them in), so I can adapt them to my special needs
• I want to be able to contribute bindings back to BuckleTypes, without leaving my project repository
• I want my tool to detect dependencies of bindings inside bindings (mostly for ecosystem / plugin bindings... ala redux-saga -> redux, jquery-plugin-x -> jquery)

from index.

@wokalski to be clear: an interop bs-foo in BuckleTypes modeling the foo as a dep doesn't make adopting it in an existing codebase harder (nor easier). foo will be shared, and if not, it won't be shared under other solutions either (we do care about interop!)

from index.

@chenglou yes - what I was saying was that I approached the problem from that angle so I didn't see this solution.

from index.

Closing for having outlived its usefulness, I think. Reopen if not.

from index.