“Must” is too strong. Our app needs MDL for controls, but the main functionality doesn’t and CAN’T rely on MDL. If mdl:Application can do everything a basic:Application can do, then that’s fine (as long as it can be sub-classed, because our app cannot be based off <body>), but if mdl:Application cannot take other components, it’s a not starter.
I do think it’s fine to say that it’s “batteries not included” (with documentation on what needs to be done) if you don’t use mdl:Application / mdl:Container, but it’s absolutely necessary for components to be mixed and matched. I don’t think our app is so unique that others will not have the same issue. Harbs > On Feb 22, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > IMO, it is fine to say that folks must use mdl:Application > instead of basic:Application and mdl:Container instead of basic:Container > if that gives you control over the lifecycle that you need in order to > help your customer.
