I was thinking about how to make things easier for folks to try out
bokeh.js, and a few questions came to mind:
1) would it be possible to just ship hem with bokeh.js? would just be nice
to reduce the start-up friction
Yes. We have a subtree/ directory at the top level for embedding things
like this. BokehJS is the only project in there right now, but we could
also pull in our fork of Hem.
We do need to do some thinking about how we're going to package releases.
Bokeh itself will most likely be consumed by Python folks, the vast
majority of whom will not want to do a lot of JS/npm/coffeescript
wrangling. So we want a single download that they can use *and* can
integrate nicely into their tools. However, there will be other Python web
programmers that will potentially want to be able to package Bokeh with
their own versions of the dependencies.
2) is it possible to build bokeh.js right now just as a "library"? I'd
like to include all the bokeh.js machinery but not make an application.js.
Is there just a different slug target that needs to be added?
Well, I think if we want that, we should just use cake, or drive cake from
a Makefile or a Python script, to create a bokehjs/ dir that includes the
minified .js of all our dependencies, as well as all the bokehJS source
itself. (I'm personally not a big fan of the application.js stuff.)
3) when should we tag a first release, and and at what version?
Within the next month, after we bake out the Python glyph API, and get
stencil & DSL stuff incorporated. Version 0.1 definitely.
4) would it make sense to make a built, minified release of bokeh.js
available through npm?
Sure, that's a possibility...
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Bryan Van de Ven <[email protected] > wrote: