On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> 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? -- John A. Tamplin -- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
