incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Reinstein <reinstein.m...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Supporting multiple projects on iOS
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:40:32 GMT
Agree on all points with Brian.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:

> > Global dependancies? It's a library, why would you not be dependent on
> it?
> >
>
> We're talking about global deps vs local deps. Not whether or not you'll
> have a dependency!
>
>
> > Standardize on the apis and not the files.
> >
>
> Uh, ok sure, not sure I understand?
>
> It only takes a few weeks of ruby (and/or python) dev to see where global
> packages become ambushes for epic fail. Node learned from this and
> explicitly created lexically scoped packages. Typically when you ship
> projects you want to have the dependencies bundled to minimize issues.
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_hell
>
>
> Not to mention the extra complexity of #2, and multiple out of sync
> > project issues.
> >
>
> I do not see where this creates complexity. It reduces it. I have a project
> that I want up-do-date. It has a dependency on 2.1.0. I have another
> project I do not want to update running 2.0.0: no problem. If I have a
> global dependency: problem!
>
> The other issue here is the requirement of having your library
> a separate concern for the end user project. When I want to build a project
> from another repo it requires me to install the correct version of the
> dependency. With option 2 the library is a part of the project and no
> installer step is required. Again: reduced complexity.
>
>
>
> I originally moved the codebase to a library and created the template
> > over 2 years ago, so I may be blind to the benefits of #2, but to me
> > this makes our library become a boilerplate... am I wrong?
> >
>
> Do not see how this is related either.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message