module naming convention is not intuitive

[zivl]

when using ES6 import or NPM require for loading modules, naming convention is not intuitive as you expect to.

For example:
Instead of:

import AppBar from 'material-ui/lib/app-bar';
import LeftNav from 'material-ui/lib/left-nav';

I would rather import it as follows:

import AppBar from 'material-ui/lib/AppBar';
import LeftNav from 'material-ui/lib/LeftNav';

See the difference? the modules I'm importing has the same name of the component's name as in the documentation site (http://material-ui.com/#/components/left-nav).

I know it might cause a little backward compatibility issue but this can be workaround easily by generating aliases or even keep both of the files for a few versions, with the appropriate deprecations messages (in code and in console)

[nibon]

I saw in the documentation that this is the preferred way of importing material-ui-libs. However I import the modules, using src/index.js, in this format which sort of answers your question in this issue.

import { AppBar, Avatar, FontIcon } from 'material-ui'

Are there any reason why I should not import using this method?

[zivl]

in this way of importing modules, you're importing the entire library. If I'm not mistaken, when packaging using jspm or webpack (or whatever packaging tool out there...) - you also package unused modules, which may cause your bundle.js to become bigger than needed, especially when using fewer modules of a specific library.

Hence, when importing file-by-file, the packaging mechanism takes only modules in use.

[nibon]

Yeah, just created a small test project (gulp/browserify) to check myself and you are correct. The size differed a couple of hundred kilobytes when only importing RaisedButton. In that case I support the proposition in this issue.

[shaurya947]

@zivl there is convention in the current naming system, so perhaps it becomes intuitive after a couple uses. However, I don't see why we should not do the naming as you suggested.

Any thoughts @hai-cea?

[hai-cea]

@zivl Thanks for opening this issue. I think this change can be made in v0.13.0 which will happen in 3 weeks or so.

[oliviertassinari]

I like this idea too 👍

[nathanmarks]

@oliviertassinari can this be closed in favour of #2679 ?