I'd like to bundle my app leaving the import and export intact, so that a 3rd party app can include my bundle and take advantage of tree shaking.
I can't find a way to do it, I already don't include es2015 babel preset, I only include stage-2 and react presets.
Is it something possible with Webpack 2?
Related
Programmatically I want to get all dart files available to import.
How can I achievement this? (programmatically)
In which environment do you want that?
If it's for a single Pub package, ensure that dart pub get has been run, then parse the .dart_tool/package_config.json file and find the roots of all the packages. Then search through those directories for all dart files that are not part files (does not start with part of ...;). The rest should be Dart library files which can be imported.
If you only want the packages that can be imported from inside lib/, you may want to parse the pubspec.yaml file too, so you can ignore the dev_dependencies.
Then you may also want to list the available dart:... platform libraries. Which are available depends on which platform you compile for. You need to figure that out somehow, then you should just keep a list for each platform.
Is there any recommendation how to import local files. In my case I would have 2 options:
import 'package:workshop/feed/item.dart';
import 'item.dart';
I haven't found anything on that on the guide Effective Dart: Style nor on Google search.
There are at least two different recommendations, depending on who you ask.
Either works, I personally recommend the latter, shorter, variant.
It is sufficient and it avoids the issue of hard-coding your package name into every file. If you ever want to rename the package, that will be a drudge.
There is one issue which makes some people recommend the former format.
If you import a package library using a non-package: URI, say by having a file in the bin/ or test/ directory do an import like:
import "../lib/mylib.dart";
then that library is now imported using two different URIs:
package:mypkg/mylib.dart and
file:///somewhere/mypkg/lib/mylib.dart
Since Dart identifies libraries by their import URIs, these two imports will be treated as different libraries, each with their own global and static variables, which just happen to have the same source code. That's an annoying problem, and can be hard to debug. If you use the long package:... import everywhere, then at least the issue is restricted to the first library you import. If you use a relative import, import "src/helper.dart";, then that library will now also exist in two versions:
package:mypkg/src/helper.dart and
file:///somewhere/mypkg/lib/src/helper.dart
The real issue here was the first import which contained a /lib/ in the path. You must never have such an import. Using package: URIs for all imports may reduce the issue, but not remove it.
I recommend using the relative path, and making sure that you never have a /lib/ in any import path. Libraries in the /lib/ directory of a pub package are package libraries and should be referred to using package: URIs. If you do that, then relative URIs will be resolved against the package URI and again be a package URI, and all is well.
I'm trying to bundle a ESM source file that includes dynamic imports like e.push(import("./polyfills/dom.js")). Not my code, so I can't change it.
With --experimentalCodeSplitting, Rollup would try to code split, but I actually want a single all-in-one bundle.
Is it possible with Rollup to include all these imports in one file?
It turned out that I was using an older version of Rollup (0.58.2). It works fine with never versions (0.60.1).
I am trying to use Berkeley's SPICE tool in an iOS app, but am having trouble compiling it for iOS.
It is a command-line program that I can call from a terminal like:
./spice3f5 <arguments>
Which works well, and I would like this functionality in my iOS app, but I don't think I can just copy the executable over to Xcode and call it from Swift.
I've done some research and found the following:
There is an updated version of SPICE called ngspice, which is relatively new (2014 release)
I'm fairly sure there are apps out there than have used either SPICE or ngspice, so I'm sure it can be done somehow.
I have read an article about a guy who says that ngspice has been compiled as a shared library(ctrl+f "ngspice"), and he made an app with it. I have emailed him but he unfortunately he has not responded.
The reason I am asking here is because when googling for "ngspice iOS", I came across this thread which has a lot of smart people trying to compile a static library, which seems way out of my scope. I learned that dynamic libraries are allowed as of iOS8. So would it be easier to compile a *.dylib than it is a static library?
How would I goabout using ngspice or SPICE in an iOS app?
Thanks
The difference between a static and a dynamic library is essentially where they live, a static library will live inside the binary of your app, and an dynamic library will live on the system (iPhone) that runs your app. there isn't much difference as far as difficulty goes. If you wanted to go the dynamic route on os x for example, you might compile a .dylib file in a separate project first. Then copy your new .dylib file into /usr/lib or a similar location that is part of your system's path. Then you would need to copy the associated header files that know how to talk to your new .dylib file into your /usr/include folder. At this point you could import said header files in xcode using angle brackets like so:
#import <my_dylib_header_file.h>
in static world however, you would simply drag your .dylib file into xcode then copy the associated header files into your source folder and then import using quotes like so:
#import "my_dylib_header_file.h"
the advantage of doing the import statically is that the library becomes baked into your final product, as opposed to a dynamic link, which will require that the dylib is installed on the system prior to the binary being able to run properly (think DLL's on windows). The disadvantage of a static import is that the final binary is larger, as it contains more code.
The advantage of a dynamic import is that the binary is smaller, and dylib can be updated without updating the binary itself.
However based on your questions I don't think any of this matters for your project. You have the source code. Which means creating a dylib is entirely unnecessary for your purpose, you can treat the source code like a static library by simply adding it to your xcode project. If I were you I would add the spice source code to my xcode project and forget about creating a dylib. From there I would import the files and make calls to them from swift. There are lots of threads out there that explain how call c functions or objective-c classes from swift so I wont go into that here, instead I'll refer you to another answer: Swift: How to call a C function loaded from a dylib
I am trying to understand Dart's recommended project structure and not seeing the "forest through the trees".
So, if my project is intended to be a reusable library, say, a logging framework of some sort, then if I understand the above link correctly, I want all of my development to be under a lib and lib/src directory.
But what if I am building a web app? Where do my Dart source files go? Under packages? Specifically:
Where do I place Dart source files for a web app (not a lib)?
Are my web app's "packages" just directories that are logically organized similar to Java packages?
Does Dart recommend a 1-class-per-file convention for its source code?
1)
your_app_package/web
your_app_package/web/src/xxx
static content like jpg, css go to
* your_app_package/asset
2) the packages directory is maintained automatically. You configure in the file pubspec.yaml which 3rd party libraries you want to use and then call pub get or pub upgrade and the packages directory is updated automatically (the Darteditor does this automatically when you update pubspec.yaml).
3) not that I know of.
I had some problems putting additional classed in the code file of a Polymer element though. But I guess this is just a temporary limitation of Polymer.