stencil.assetsRoot property proposal #96
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The stencil.assetsRoot property is supposed to standardize the way of working with the assets and make integrations of libraries easier for the users of libraries. It's supposed to be something, that maintainers edit, so they can go with basically any other name for the folder other than `assets`.
Author
|
The PR is quite optimistic and more of an RFC :) I believe, there is a lot more other work that has to be done for this to work out — update the docs, maybe come up with specific code that creates a root folder for the assets. But the point is to propose an idea for now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
stencil.assetsRootproperty is supposed to standardize the way of working with the assets and make integrations of libraries easier for the users of libraries. For now, there are a lot of discussions going on around this topic. I've also encountered this issue of integration lib's assets with the app, and have come up with a feeling that it would have been so much easier, if it was standardized more strictly, so that any standardized JSON file (in this case package.json) would contain a pointer to the assets root.It's supposed to be something, that maintainers edit, so they can go with basically any other name for the folder other than
assets.