Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upGitHub is where the world builds software
Millions of developers and companies build, ship, and maintain their software on GitHub — the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.
[Flight] Rename react-transport-... packages to react-server-... #20403
Conversation
This is mainly because "React Server Server" is weird so we need another dimension.
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 9c3bfe2:
|
Details of bundled changes.Comparing: ce40f1d...9c3bfe2 react-server-dom-webpack
Size changes (stable) |
Details of bundled changes.Comparing: ce40f1d...9c3bfe2 react-server-dom-webpack
Size changes (experimental) |
sebmarkbage
force-pushed the
sebmarkbage:transporttoserver
branch
from
3d3ccae
to
9c3bfe2
| ReactDOMFlightRelayServer = require('react-transport-dom-relay/server'); | ||
| ReactDOMFlightRelayClient = require('react-transport-dom-relay'); | ||
| ReactDOMFlightRelayServer = require('react-server-dom-relay/server'); | ||
| ReactDOMFlightRelayClient = require('react-server-dom-relay'); |
gaearon
Dec 8, 2020
Member
Should we start getting rid of the codename in source? It’s already being referred to in some places which risks confusion.
Should we start getting rid of the codename in source? It’s already being referred to in some places which risks confusion.
sebmarkbage
Dec 8, 2020
Author
Member
These are internal FB names. I think I’ve changed the external ones.
These are internal FB names. I think I’ve changed the external ones.
gaearon
Dec 8, 2020
Member
Yeah but I mean people read the source too. If we don't need the codename we could just remove it everywhere.
Yeah but I mean people read the source too. If we don't need the codename we could just remove it everywhere.
| "./node-register": "./node-register.js", | ||
| "./package.json": "./package.json" | ||
| }, | ||
| "browser": { | ||
| "./server.js": "./server.browser.js" | ||
| "./writer.js": "./writer.browser.server.js" |
gaearon
Dec 8, 2020
Member
What’s up with this change?
What’s up with this change?
gaearon
Dec 8, 2020
Member
I guess this is still a server even in the browser. So was the extension missing before?
I guess this is still a server even in the browser. So was the extension missing before?
gaearon
Dec 8, 2020
Member
ah I see
uses the .server.js convention to enforce that it's only loaded within a react-server environment.
ah I see
uses the .server.js convention to enforce that it's only loaded within a react-server environment.
sebmarkbage
Dec 8, 2020
Author
Member
It’s weird that this convention wins and have to be one the end.
It’s also weird that since this reexports, the reexport is considered a hybrid. That just works because it doesn’t have dependencies on other server files.
We probably should change our CJS build output convention to include server at the end.
It’s weird that this convention wins and have to be one the end.
It’s also weird that since this reexports, the reexport is considered a hybrid. That just works because it doesn’t have dependencies on other server files.
We probably should change our CJS build output convention to include server at the end.
sebmarkbage
merged commit 5fd9db7
into
facebook:master
Also renames /server to /writer and uses the .server.js convention to enforce that it's only loaded within a react-server environment.
The client is still /index but I use the Reader suffix convention as import name.
If this naming convention sticks then SSR (react-dom/server) will need a different name (not named server). It's not fully clear yet whether Fizz will be a standalone thing or if it will be built to include the Reader. In the later case it might end up in this same package but under a different name.