On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:13:49 PM UTC+2, John A. Tamplin wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Broyer > <t.br...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> As far as modularization is concerned, we'd like to have dependencies >> always in the same direction: rebind->client->shared->server (or >> rebind->client->server->shared, depending on modules) so we can make a >> "client" artifact depending on a "server" artifact, or a "client" and >> "server" artifacts both depending on a "shared" artifact (but with no >> dependency between "client" and "server"). In some cases, we'll split >> packages into distinct artifacts (there are cycles at the package level, >> but not when looking only at the classes); e.g. c.g.g.user.client (Window, >> Timer, etc.) c.g.g.resources and c.g.g.junit to have a package not >> depending on I18N and other things, and another one (or several) with >> additional dependencies. >> > > Why would it be acceptable to have shared code depend on server code? >
I probably meant "rebind" rather than "shared"; but I seem to remember some shared code making direct calls to server/vm, with a super-source version. In this case, the shared and server packages would live in a "server" artifact, and the client package and super-source version would live in a "client" artifact, with no "shared" artifact. There's also the case of classes referenced in annotations (e.g. @ProxyFor and @Service in RequestFactory) > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
