> On May 10, 2018, at 1:08 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Please explain the following: >> 1. What is the advantage of removing the Basic library swc as a dependency >> from component sets? >> > > This was fully explained, please, revisit the thread, since I give > different responses some time repeating itself. The last one just few > minutes ago responding all this threads
Well, could you please do me a favor and explain it again? I can’t seem to find it. I think we’re most likely to come to an agreement if we could have all the arguments in one place. > >> 2. What (if anything) is the advantage of changing package names? >> > > My intention here was to put things in "core". This could be a wrong > decision, due to all of you don't want to change references in you final > applications, but as refactor I think is ok to have Core classes in "core" > package, and not a mixture of things in Core and Basic where some are in > "core" and others are in "html", what seems completely wrong and very > confusing. I changed some to the old namespace to try to help in that, but > seems nothing of this serves. Even after your refactor, we still have the html package, so I’m not really sure I understand what you’re accomplishing. Maybe this goes back to the disconnect on what Basic is. Thanks, Harbs
