search

LightTable / Javascript

Javascript language plugin for Light Table
MIT License
56 stars 79 forks source link

Tern Integration #4

Closed mortalapeman closed 10 years ago

mortalapeman commented 10 years ago

I've got a pretty good start with tern integration into LT, but I wanted to get some feed back on my progress before I try to do any in depth work.

Some of the points I would like to discuss are my use of the nodejs fork instead of LT's background worker macro, the lt.objs.clients api, how to get the plugin directory during development, and my overall behavior definitions. I decided not to go with the background worker because of the stateful nature of the server, but I would like feedback on that. I also tried to make use of the client api available in the lt.objs.clients namespace, but I am not sure if I am making full use of it. I found the plugin-dir dynamic var, but how might I go about testing that it works?

Also, would this be better suited as a separate plugin for the time being?

My next steps are getting docs working and analyzing the code mirror addon so I can pull out all the optimizations in that code. I'll keep trucking along unless someone points in a different direction, so the earlier the feedback the better xD.

mortalapeman commented 10 years ago

I realize you've got plenty of things on your plate, so it will probably be better for me to release this as a separate plugin for now. I plan on polishing up the code this weekend and hopefully will release the plugin on Sunday. We can merge the codebases at a later time if you feel it's appropriate :)

ibdknox commented 10 years ago

Sorry I've been slow on this, this a bigger change, so it'd take me a bit to get through it. I definitely would like to get tern integration into the core JS plugin :)

mortalapeman commented 10 years ago

Good to hear, it still needs a lot of work before it's ready for prime time. I've created a separate plugin repo here with a list in the README of the work that still needs to be done. My plan was to release it as a separate plugin so I can get feedback from the community until it's more robust. This also has the benefit of freeing you and Jamie from the release cycle while it's under heavy development. Does that sound like a good plan or would it be easier keep it under the java script plugin source?

ibdknox commented 10 years ago

That seems reasonable :)