On Dec 10, 4:49 pm, "Mark Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Which gets you little, since you cannot force the user to install A. > > > But you can: > > Which will irritate your users.
I agree :) > > Hence, I stand by my assessment that, while there are ways for B to access > A's resources at runtime, in general, that's not a viable reuse model. You > are trading a trivial development-time inconvenience for a crappy user > experience, which won't be a good trade in most cases. It's not just about "trivial development-time inconvenience"... E.g. You have big-size A, which is used by B, C, and D. Obvious disadvantages for the *user* if A is packaged with B and C and D: - significant waste of space; - significant bandwidth consumption if A is updated, because B, C and D have to be also updated. > Your development-time symlink approach is about as good as it gets today, > at least for solo developers. Symlinks are fine for me. I just thought there is a better approach :) > > -- > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com > Android App Developer Books:http://commonsware.com/books.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
