Remove jQuery dependency

bgrins / ExpandingTextareas

jQuery plugin for elegant expanding textareas

http://bgrins.github.com/ExpandingTextareas/

MIT License

261 stars 73 forks source link

Remove jQuery dependency #64

Closed domchristie closed 7 years ago

domchristie commented 8 years ago

This pull request refactors the library to remove the jQuery dependency as discussed in #63.

The tasks are broadly as follows:

[x] Remove jQuery code from internal methods
[x] Separate concerns into classes
[x] Build with Rollup
[x] Replace Grunt with npm script
[x] Move jQuery plugin to separate file
[x] Update documentation
[x] Update demo

Other changes:

[Breaking] Renames the update event from update.expanding to expanding:update for compatibility with jQuery event binding
[Breaking] Removes the update option, and instead encourages developers to bind to expanding:update
Adds 6px additional padding on iOS devices (this is not detectable with any style attribute, so user agent sniffing is used)
Uses standard code style

domchristie commented 7 years ago

OK, I think this is ready for review. Let me know what you reckon :)

bgrins commented 7 years ago

This is looking great! A little hard to review all the code but the general direction seems good to me. Things to do in follow ups or still discuss.

Remove author field in package configs and use contributors instead so we can both be credited
Publish to npm
Make a decision about bower - do we still want to support that or only npm?

domchristie commented 7 years ago

Remove author field in package configs and use contributors instead so we can both be credited

😄 thanks! Done in https://github.com/bgrins/ExpandingTextareas/pull/64/commits/4f9f0868e0becce1cc897be69d6c030d33a87c7c

Make a decision about bower - do we still want to support that or only npm?

Good question. I think it'd be fine to support bower if we automated the process of publishing (i.e. git-tagging). Something like this perhaps: https://github.com/bevacqua/domador/blob/master/package.json#L8 ?

bgrins commented 7 years ago

Good question. I think it'd be fine to support bower if we automated the process of publishing (i.e. git-tagging). Something like this perhaps: https://github.com/bevacqua/domador/blob/master/package.json#L8 ?

Some kind of automated tag/publish process would be great. We can kick that out into a follow up issue though. I wish we could see stats for installs with bower to help decide if it's worth supporting.

bgrins commented 7 years ago

All I could find is https://bower.io/stats/, which doesn't seem to include package-level stats

bgrins commented 7 years ago

Thanks @domchristie, this looks great! Feel free to land at will

domchristie commented 7 years ago

Feel free to land at will

Great! Should we tag the current master as 0.3.0? Should I also add a note to the new README, highlighting that the master branch is pre-release software?

bgrins commented 7 years ago

Great! Should we tag the current master as 0.3.0?

Done at https://github.com/bgrins/ExpandingTextareas/commit/8a1d571c346318bcc56c1e753c299d2b4390c415 and https://github.com/bgrins/ExpandingTextareas/releases/tag/0.3.0.

Should I also add a note to the new README, highlighting that the master branch is pre-release software?

I think if we have instructions for installation through package managers people will know to not download the files directly from master

bgrins commented 7 years ago

OK, I think this is good to go now. Once the code lands we'll also need to publish to package managers