Reconsider package breakdown #683
Comments
|
I support combining the calculators and core into |
|
I would recommend using tsconfig paths to reduce the need for relative paths. |
|
I'm going to write a proper RFC for this issue. This goes beyond just splitting the codebase into packages, we can go as far as detailing UMD endpoints. I'll post a link here once it's up. |
|
It took me a while, but the RFC is up! Please read and comment so we can iron out the kinks and move forward. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The current v2 alpha is broken down between multiple packages:
@dinero.js/calculator-bigint@dinero.js/calculator-number@dinero.js/core@dinero.js/currenciesdinero.jsNot all packages may be relevant:
dinero.jsand@dinero.js/currencies@dinero.js/coreisn't tested to avoid duplicates withdinero.js@dinero.js/calculator-numberis used by default indinero.jsand hasn't much use elsewhereMulti-packages make sense when there are strong reasons why you might not need them all (e.g., when implementing a library in multiple JavaScript flavors, when providing fully optional plugins, etc.) and in case of large bundle size impact.
Right now, there might be more packages than necessary, which hurts developer experience (e.g., it's easy to have mismatched versions) for no gain.
Let's reconsider how the packages are broken down before going beta.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: