Export luma functions

[chrisgervang]

Background

How should a scripting application use luma 9 to register or create devices? Or in my case, call enforceWebGL2 from a bug repro.

I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, so I'm starting by proposing the simplest one. It comes with a downside that the script would access the functions with luma.luma.createDevice, which is not super elegant.. alternatively we could remove the nesting by spreading the functions onto the export.

Change List

• Add luma namespace functions to the pre-built bundle.

[coveralls]

coverage: 90.026% (+0.002%) from 90.024%
when pulling 43dc540 on chrisgervang-patch-1
into e823e40 on master.

[Pessimistress]

I would expect this luma export to be the very same globalThis.luma object. @ibgreen is there any downside of doing that? Should this be handled in @luma.gl/core instead?

[chrisgervang]

v9 introduced a luma namespace within the core for some static functions. I think the scripting package can export these however it wants since we can document the mapping

[ibgreen]

I would expect this luma export to be the very same globalThis.luma object. Should this be handled in @luma.gl/core instead?

Agreed, It probably makes sense to add the functions in the luma "namespace" to globalThis.luma (rather than globalThis.luma.luma) in the script bundle built by @luma.gl/core (edited).

@ibgreen is there any downside of doing that?

I suppose the downside is that the concepts are unrelated and it could cause some minor confusion, but as @chrisgervang says it is up to us to define the mapping.