emberjs_require updated to use bower.

[stephenplusplus]

(#527)
(#475)

I updated the emberjs_require example to use the new Ember, using the same code from the architectural-examples/emberjs, but wrapped with Require.

I'm still pretty new to Require, so if I did anything strangely, please let me know!

[passy]

Fantastic!

@stas Does this look good to you?

[addyosmani]

lgtm.

[stas]

There's no point in using require.js as long as modules are not loaded asynchronously on demand.

The example provided here is not different at all from compiling all the models/controllers/views into a single JavaScript file since this is basically what app.js does.

The only use-case I can see it's fit, is with the views-templates loading.

I tried to build an asynchronous example of this app but the new Ember.js router is way too coupled to the application namespace, which makes it both: hard and unconventional to use require.js.

To be short, I suggest removing require.js example of Ember.js app.
Just my opinion.

[stephenplusplus]

FWMOIW ("for what my opinion is worth", I'm pretty sure that acronym doesn't exist yet), I feel the same, @stas. It was a fun experiment for me to see how this all works, but it did feel weird, since we need every file, and are doing extra work to just end up where we would be with <script> tags.

The only reason I can see to keep this example is if people are new to both Ember and Require, so they can see how they can work together.

I'm happy to make the template external as a dependency, if that's the way everyone wants to go.

[passy]

That's the problem with such a limited example. For what it's worth, the Backbone and Angular examples basically work the same way. I still believe that there is some use to having them in the collection, as many people are looking for a way to combine these frameworks with RJS, even though we don't necessarily provide a good real-world application of the pattern here.

[stas]

Let's do a simple math...
There are 3 apps atm using Require.js: both Backbone and Ember.js are using it out of it's scope. Flight doesn't have a router so I'm counting it as the other two.

I don't see the reason why these examples should be kept. Require.js has a pretty decent documentation on how to write dependency-aware JavaScript code.
Using it with frameworks that do not encourage (Ember.js community is not a fan of AMD for example) such tools or in examples that do not cover the scope of an AMD loader is also not correct (If it were for the sake of providing a good Require.js example, than I would keep previous Ember.js example since it handles AMD properly).

@addyosmani, @sindresorhus it's up to you guys if you want to keep these, but I would rather see a correct example of and AMD app, than keep current ones.

[addyosmani]

I think the arguments @stas outlines are legitimate. To assist us in making a call on whether or not to remove this, adding @tomdale and @trek for their opinions. If they're +1 on this specific implementation having limited use, we'll remove it. I do however intend on us keeping the Backbone and Angular ones (for now).

[passy]

Those arguments are definitely convincing. As far as I know the same applies to the AngularJS community. Should we consider removing the AngularJS + Require.JS example in the same turn?

@btford Could you share your opinion on that?

[btford]

I seem to get a lot of questions on RequireJS these days. I should write up something definitive. (Disclaimer: below are opinions)

In an ideal world, we'd all be using ES6 (or whatever interoperable module system wins) plus Bower (or whatever interoperable distribution system wins). Right now, if you want to bring code wrapped with RequireJS into an AngularJS app, the best way to do so is by using RequireJS. If you don't need to use wrapped code, AngularJS modules plus "ye old grab the library exported object off of window" works just fine.

I'm not particularly happy with the state of anything right now that I feel comfortable recommending any particular solution. That being said, I think it's worth looking into one of these projects that compiles ES6 modules into AMD modules for use today.

[sindresorhus]

Remove it if it's not useful. We can always link to @stephenplusplus fork in the wiki for those few that would find it useful.

[sindresorhus]

Removing this in a few days if no one stops me before that ;)

[tomdale]

👍 The current Ember.js dependency injection architecture has been designed to support module systems à la AMD/RequireJS, but we don't yet expose good hooks for them yet. I think it's best to remove this and wait until our support for them is more robust.

[sindresorhus]

@stephenplusplus can you add yours to the wiki with a short explanation and a link to this discussion?

[passy]

We could add the link to the fork to the readme as well.

[stephenplusplus]

Pull Request 551: add source and demo link to ember+rjs readme

Added to the wiki as well 🍻