-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should the projector be split off? #53
Comments
Makes sense to me. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Matt Hampel [email protected]
|
But you aren't ever going to use a datasource without core around anyway, right? Pulling this out might be nice and tidy, but I don't really see any actual benefit to it. |
@rob you may be right. Would there ever be the case in which either scenario would set up a crazy dependency graph, eg: a data source requires a different version of core/projector than the project/core is using. It makes my head hurt to think about, but I'll look at some other projects that do these types of "many small parts that make up a larger system" and see how they deal with dependency issues like this. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Rob Brackett [email protected]
|
I poked around RailwayJS (now apparently Compound) and they seem to have everything pretty well separated. I'm on the fence because:
Alternative proposal: rather than datasources including core as a dependency, we inject the projector (or all of core?) into the datasource. Edits: Ruby on the brain. |
Datasources require
nodetiles-core
just for the projector. It seems that it would be cleaner to split the projector off and require it in both datasources and core? That way we're not requiring the whole core for each datasource.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: