consider removing fs about gray-matter HOT 10 CLOSED

what if we did gray-matter-lite or something, then we could require that into this module for the time being to keep the API the same here.

from gray-matter.

This is working as of version 3.0.6. Thanks!

from gray-matter.

This is working as of version 3.0.6. Thanks!

Great! I was going to ask. Thanks!

from gray-matter.

just saw this comment. That might be a solution too.

from gray-matter.

Another way that would work for us if you don't want to change the sources would be to have a re-packaged version for browsers that was run through Babel or something like that and left out the Node functions like matter.read/fs.

If we did it that way, then you should be able to build the sources however you want, then publish it as two separate packages (maybe gray-matter and gray-matter-browser or something like that).

from gray-matter.

If we did it that way, then you should be able to build the sources however you want, then publish it as two separate packages (maybe gray-matter and gray-matter-browser or something like that).

yeah, that's not a bad idea. Let me think about it for a little bit (today). @doowb?

from gray-matter.

Another option if we are just considering fs is wrapping the require in an if:

if (require) { require('fs'); }

I'd still have to test this though, I'm not sure that it works with WebPack.

from gray-matter.

That sounds really good.

from gray-matter.

I like the idea of having a separate module with browser compatible features that is then required into gray-matter.

The if(require) { require('fs'); } won't work for webpack because webpack does static analysis to determine which modules to include by looking at the require keyword.

Another option that might work is for gray-matter to add a browser property to package.json with {"fs": false} since webpack supports the package browser field spec now. I haven't tested this to know if it would work for you or not.

from gray-matter.

That would be awesome.

from gray-matter.