> On May 29, 2018, at 5:34 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi > > 2018-05-29 16:00 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com > <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>>: >> >> >> 1. How do we define what is “Core"? >> > > *Core*: This classes are needed to build a Royale > > Application. All pieces here are required. No CSS is present here > > to wire any concrete relationship between pieces, as well avoiding > > possible inclussions of CSS rules and/or bugs in a final App.
OK. I define Core a bit differently. Core defines the *architecture* or “scaffolding” of a Royale application. I don’t believe a Royale application can be compiled from Core alone. Core is assumed to be a prerequisite for almost all other Royale libs (except Testing and Language). It should not have dependencies on other libraries or particular implementation details. >> 2. Should package names match the project names? >> > > Normaly this is true always. Don't recall libraries with mixed package > names. > Some exceptions: Network has "net", but this is normal for less verbosity. I’m not sure about this. I think It might be beneficial to discuss particulars to weigh the pros and cons on this. I don’t know where stand myself. > >> 3. Do we care to try and make package names shorter (i..e limit the level >> of folders)? >> > > Yes, if we can, but in the case os beads, since we'll be using mostly on > mxml, we put shorter class name over package levels. Even on AS3 in this > case is better a longer import than multiple longer class names use. I think I agree with this. >> 4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of making Basic a dependency >> for other component sets? >> > > I think this is mostly explained here, and a image use to be better than > thousand words, but the image mix graphs and explanations: > https://snag.gy/DbH4iG.jpg <https://snag.gy/DbH4iG.jpg> Here is what the dependencies are currently: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8n3dxgv45qus3jp/royale.png?dl=0 I don’t understand the point of changing the dependencies around. To me the advantages of making Basic a dependency is: 1. A clearer (to me), flatter dependency tree. 2. A “base” component set to use (or partially use) for composition. 3. A logical place to put shared beads. What is gained by removing that dependency? > >> 5. A question which might follow the ones above are whether we should add >> a new package. I’d rather wait to discuss this until we have some clarity >> on the ones above. >> > > mmm...you mean to say "package" or new "library" (maybe you refer to > "Foundation" here) Yes. Or something else. Thanks, Harbs
