Ember Core, August 5, 12, 19 #98
Conversation
|
|
||
| YK: If you restrict it you could likely build something. Making it generic is what is the pain in an ass. | ||
|
|
||
| #### RFC for transition event |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One thing that is exceptionally frustrating about the RFC process is that it is opaque and that the discussion for or against the RFC is done without the person who authored it and other interested parties present. This doesn't grant a fair hearing of the reasoning behind it and removes the RFC from context. The Ember CLI team directly invites authors of the RFCs (if we're discussing one) to attend the meeting.
So, context: two critical pieces of LinkedIn's infrastructure (tracking and prefetch) are built on top of a Router.reopen because there is no other way to get insight into what is going on. That is not an acceptable long-term solution and we have been trying to get to a sustainable solution through community process since October 2015.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@emberjs/core it would be good if these comments made it to the RFC itself, so the author can address (or comment on them)
No description provided.