On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 20:14, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Ahh, so if I update all of the module string Ids and axe the extra
> <platform> directory - we are all good, ya? Was wondering if there was
> specific reasoning other than "this is how we did it before".
>
I read "update all of the module string ids" as "change the module ids used
in require() invocations" and "axe the extra <platform> directory" as "mv
{platform}/plugin/{platform}/* {platform}/plugin" then things will still
work, assuming the module id's you change in require() match the new module
names.
However ...
There's something to be said for having the platform name in the module id.
I happen to like it. It's not required, of course, but I like it. It
would certainly be possible to change the build to reshape the story so
there weren't "duplicate" platform names in the file path, but still was a
platform name in the module id, for instance.
I don't care enough about this, either way, though, to work on any
alternative approaches.
The other thing to think about is - what happens when we have a 3rd party
plugin story. Presumably you would "package" your plugin modules in a
single wad, somehow separating out platform-specific files. It's seems
like a reasonable possibility that the module ids might contain the
platform name, and that might be a significant part of how the plugin is
structured. Or, of course, maybe it won't. We don't know.
>From that aspect, the effort to rejigger all this stuff seems like a waste
of time, to me.
--
Patrick Mueller
http://muellerware.org
