Hi Harbs after 75 emails on this thread, understand that I don't want to again write it, since this is making me waste lots of time in this discussion.
3) Having the need to link a library that should not be used, is that something is wrong, so it's not about 1) it's about things are not setting correctly, and this refactor tries to fix that at least to put a point in wich we can make things better. 4) aside 2, some classes are linked via CSS as well (Application, Group, Container, Button, Slider, and many more 5) Having Basic to be a core dependency, makes it Core in itself, so why the separation Core- Basic if I'm obligated to link it? 6) Making Basic not present in libraries that doesn't need it, makes people obligated by design to avoid extend Basic classes making the effect but time that things mess between libraries, and obligates SDK developers to think about the using of classes, since if we need some, maybe that will be Core and not Basic 7) Basic is only another UI set at the same level or sibling like Jewel, MDL, CreateJS, Flat, and more we want to do, until now was very needed, but if we want to make Royale to serve general purpose, making it to be present always is not the right way to go. 8) reduced size in final jewel applications. I think for sure I put more things on the plate, but can't invest now the time to go all 75 emails to retrieve it 2018-05-10 12:48 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>: > The only reasons I seem to have seen are: > 1. A philosophical opposition to having Basic as a dependency. > 2. Not wanting Basic CSS included in a Jewel project. > > Unless I’m missing something, #1 I simply disagree with. > #2 sounds like a valid argument, but it seems to me more like something > which needs to be fixed in the compiler. CSS not used by an app should not > be included and I think we need a way of avoiding typename conflicts > between component sets. > > Are there other arguments which I missed? > > Since Carlos does not seem to want to explain himself again, I’m asking > others on the list: > > Do others understand why Carlos feels the refactor is important? > > Thanks, > Harbs > > > On May 10, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> Can we please keep this discussion about the technical reasons for a > >> refactor and whether or not it’s the right thing to do? If you have > strong > >> technical reasons why Basic should not be a dependency please explain > them. > >> > > > > Harbs, I'll explained lots of time, and you keep ask the same. What did > you > > not understand of the things I expressed so many time? > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
