You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After 0.12, the MF-libraries started using the ESM format. This forces every package and project that uses MF to migrate into ESM. Some of them can't do this for several reasons:
They use packages that aren't type: "module". Some of these may be upgraded to newer versions (that published as ESM), but some just don't have an ESM.
Moving into ESM has some costs, such as updating bundlers or their configuration (some of which is not easy, especially for large enterprise projects).
So, it seems too early to start using ESM (or publish packages is ESM-only). For now, it blocks non-ESM projects from getting the latest MF updates, and this is sad.
I would like to propose moving back to CJS or publishing MF-libraries in ESM+CJS format.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
After 0.12, the MF-libraries started using the ESM format. This forces every package and project that uses MF to migrate into ESM. Some of them can't do this for several reasons:
type: "module"
. Some of these may be upgraded to newer versions (that published as ESM), but some just don't have an ESM.So, it seems too early to start using ESM (or publish packages is ESM-only). For now, it blocks non-ESM projects from getting the latest MF updates, and this is sad.
I would like to propose moving back to CJS or publishing MF-libraries in ESM+CJS format.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions