Question: switch to livereactload

[mklabs]

relates to #103 comment

Switching to livereactload may provide the net benefit of hot reloading for JS code. CSS and images needs to be figured out, I'm not sure livereactload handles it at all.

Maybe in combination with livereloadjs, though it seems difficult to handle both of them and make them work together.

[elwayman02]

LiveReactload requires watchify, babelify and react >= 0.13.x in order to work.

This seems to be a non-starter. If livereactload requires React, we would be forcing every project using tiny-lr (which includes many Angular/Ember projects, among others) to add React as a dependency.

[elwayman02]

Wouldn't this also further assume that everyone using tiny-lr is using browserify?

[elwayman02]

You can use LiveReactload with all build systems having Browserify and Watchify support.

[mklabs]

You're right. A lot of assumptions and implied dependencies ^^

Though, I'd really like to experiment with this idea even though it seems a huge undertaking.

I'm working on the CLI part and was willing to try switching over it and see how it goes. Thinking about it, I think this is too much work for tiny-lr.

[elwayman02]

I am intrigued by the hot reload for JS, but we'd need a much lower-level dependency for that to make sense, I think.

[mklabs]

Maybe there is some way to have the CLI part (which eventually would be separate from tiny-lr) use or reuse part of livereactload, not really sure.

but we'd need a much lower-level dependency for that to make sense, I think.

I definitely agree.