Added module entry point in package.json

[Andarist]

Webpack2+ and rollup will understand this out of the box when importing from the lib, no need to import from 'react-waypoint/es'

[trotzig]

Thanks @Andarist! We used to have module in the package.json file, but it was causing issues for people. This commit removed it: 0e791c0. Here's the issue that was filed after we added it: #221

I'm not going to close this PR just yet. If you or someone else can come up with a few workarounds for people who will run into trouble from this, I'm okay merging this and releasing it as v8 (so that people will have to make a manual upgrade + migration).

[Andarist]

The problem described in the other issue was caused by using .mjs extension. Merging this PR as is wouldn't case any trouble.

Using .mjs as extension for module's entry wouldn't give any benefits, .mjs is node's thing and module is targeting web bundlers.

[jamesplease]

I am a huge 👍 to this change as long as our build configuration outputs the right files.

This is what I do on personal libraries as well as libraries at work, and it works out really well. Furthermore, numerous other widely-used JS libraries do this, too, such as Redux. This configuration is the de facto way to support tree shaking with webpack without any side effects caused by unsupported extensions such as .mjs.

I discouraged us from using .mjs in the original PR where we introduced module, and, unsurprisingly to me that decision caused problems for our users. The problem has never been the module field (which is widely supported); it’s the extension (which has very little/nonexistent ecosystem support).

@Andarist makes a great point here, as well:

Using .mjs as extension for module's entry wouldn't give any benefits, .mjs is node's thing and module is targeting web bundlers.

tl;dr, I am strongly in favor of this change, and holding off on .mjs until it is more widely supported 👍

[lencioni]

I agree with James. Let's ship module field and go to .js instead of .mjs Although by now I think create react app supports mjs

…

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 10:49 PM James, please ***@***.***> wrote: I am a huge 👍 to this change as long as our build configuration outputs the right files. This is what I do on personal libraries as well as libraries at work, and it works out amazingly. Furthermore, numerous other widely-used JS libraries do this, too, such as Redux. This configuration is the *de facto* way to support tree shaking with webpack without any side effects caused by unsupported extensions such as .mjs. I discouraged us from using .mjs in the original PR where we introduced module, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, that decision caused problems for our users. The problem has never been the module field (which is widely supported); it’s the extension (which has very little/nonexistent ecosystem support). tl;dr, I am strongly in favor of this change, and holding off on .mjs until it is more widely supported 👍 — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#234 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAL7zvLUJnMBqqBaBk8exzXVfO_lUiOmks5tDKKRgaJpZM4RLAAr> .

[trotzig]

Thanks for all the input folks!