Dear all,

i am new to Ember and wanted to start with MU, but it seems to be a hard way?

By example ember-simple-auth works fine in the traditional way, but inside a MU-app i ran the installer (MODULE_UNIFICATION=true EMBER_CLI_MODULE_UNIFICATION=true ember install ember-simple-auth) and then all my routes are breaked and i see just a white page. Installing of ember-cli-foundation-6 was no problem on the traditional way, but with mu (MODULE_UNIFICATION=true EMBER_CLI_MODULE_UNIFICATION=true ember install ember-cli-foundation-6) did’nt work. At the end i installed the css-Version

The question ist: Did i install the modules on the wrong way?

Is it to early to use MU?

Thanks, Christian

The best path for people who are new is to stick to the guides and use the stable filesystem layout. Otherwise you’re inviting a lot of instability.

And even people who are not new shouldn’t really be focusing on “MU” because the concept isn’t even well-defined right now. After a lot of real world feedback, the earlier proposal for what “MU” would be was found lacking and better ideas were proposed. See the full details in this blog post.

1 Like

Thanks, ef4!

so, then what to say about pods?

is this a good compromise or would you really say: stay on the existing tutorials until MU is standard?

You should be able to use pods without issue if you really like it better. And theoretically there will be codemods to transition from classic -> MU and pods -> MU so I doubt you’ll be in a worse position in terms of migration. There is a little bit of nuance to using pods, especially with certain addons, but in my experience it works pretty well (it’s certainly been around a while). So if you really like the pods layout better than classic I’d say go for it.

We did some compromise and only used PODs for our components. Since we mainly focus on components this is quite nice. For us it felt somehow strange to combine everything within PODs (routes, models etc) but for components we think it’s a good fit. This is basically what the following RFC suggests: