Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 7, 2022. It is now read-only.

Include unbundled build in gulpfile #56

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Include unbundled build in gulpfile #56

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

andrewweaver
Copy link

Feel free to reject this merge if it is not the overall goal of the project, but I thought it would be nice to include a bundled and unbundled version of this project.

The changes include piping the project to an unbundled directory before sending to the bundler. Also added to the promise chain to include the generation of both service workers.

This would resolve #55

@robdodson
Copy link
Contributor

@andrewweaver have you found yourself needing both a bundled and an unbundled version of the same project? I was thinking folks might prefer a top level boolean that they can set to produce one or the other.

@andrewweaver
Copy link
Author

@robdodson I agree with your idea of using a simple boolean to generate one project or the other. We tend to generate both a bundled and unbundled version as some of our test/staging servers do support H2 but not all of them. This is probably a limited case as to where people would need a similar solution, that being said it at least gives choice.

@robdodson
Copy link
Contributor

We used to generate both bundled and unbundled output in a previous version of this generator but I think folks preferred one or the other. @FredKSchott wdyt

@andrewweaver
Copy link
Author

andrewweaver commented Jan 23, 2017

@robdodson Thats really the reason I submitted the PR (because it was in the old version,) simply because we do use both. I wasn't sure of how many other people used it, and thought others may like the old solution.

@jsilvermist
Copy link

jsilvermist commented Jan 23, 2017

What about 2 top level booleans used to toggle both bundled and unbundled for people who want either 1 or both?

Or commenting along with an int, say 1 for bundled, 2 for unbundled, 3 for both?

@FredKSchott
Copy link
Contributor

@robdodson correct me if I'm wrong, but our goal when writing the current gulpfile was to be as simple as possible to 1) understand and 2) modify/customize. With that in mind, I don't think that this change makes sense to merge into custom-build. But I love(!) to see how easy it was for you to make this change in your own gulpfile, since modifying and extending what is written was exactly what we wanted to encourage and make as easy as possible.

Also slightly related: we're changing the Polymer CLI to generate a single build by default. So while bundled & unbundled may feel a a little more "default" now, I think it will be less requested once that CLI change is released.

@andrewweaver
Copy link
Author

@FredKSchott Thanks for the heads up! Feel free to close!

Side Note: Absolutely love the idea of Promise chaining gulpfiles!

@robdodson robdodson closed this Jan 24, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[feature request] Add flag to enable/disable bundler
4 participants