I think moving it out would be a better idea. That said, could we not make the security module an optional runtime dependency?
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:46 PM, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com>wrote: > Maybe it could be a separate module, and both security and ?? compile > against that. > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > All the ViewConfig stuff has not much to do with 'Configuration', right? > > It's more related to 'View'. > > > > Kind of the configuration for the View, but still only related to the > View > > stuff. > > As I've understood we only need it in core at all because some Security > > stuff references it as well, right? > > > > > > But it's actually more view.config but config.view, isn't? > > > > Fear people who look at our 'config' API/SPI will get confused by all > > those unrelated classes. > > > > Should we move it? Or does it fit well enough and I just don't get it? > > > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > -- Jason Porter http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
