JSX extension support

[CompuIves]

Response to #161 in case we want to support .jsx files.

[Alfredo2519]

I dont really no wut to do here im new at this lol

[rauchg]

What's the advantage of supporting .jsx if we already support jsx in .js? Isn't it confusing to have two?

[skhavari]

typescript is a use case to support this. typescript will produce jsx files if you want babel to compile JSX and not typescript.

[arunoda]

@rauchg beside what @skhavari mentioned, some still love to use .jsx extension for React.
Here's the discussion in CRA: facebook/create-react-app#87

If this helps to someone, adding .jsx support make no harm.
But we should not document it.

[rauchg]

I support this since JSX is not a standard feature, and I understand that some might want to make this explicit.

[giacomorebonato]

how to understand the conflict in webpack.js ?

[rauchg]

Can you elaborate?

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:49 AM Giacomo Rebonato notifications@github.com
wrote:

how to understand the conflict in webpack.js ?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#163 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAy8QhhL6AKSJ1FfcHLc1P6JCF6KlGDks5rAWkzgaJpZM4KkguK
.

[giacomorebonato]

I would like to help with this PR, but I don't know how to understand what the conflict on webpacks.js is about.
Should I checkout this branch e run the tests?

[rauchg]

Closing this for the time being as we haven't heard much. @CompuIves wouldn't it be nicer to incorporate typescript support through babel / webpack decoration, rather than a separate pipeline that outputs .jsx files?

[CompuIves]

@rauchg I agree, I now see that I also edited the gulp file which wasn't necessary at all 😅 . After we support the Webpack config PR people can just add this themselves, we could also maybe document it somewhere or create helper methods (something like addJSXSupport(webpackConfig)).