On 11/16/16, 10:23 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Basically, it comes down to whether HTML dependes on Effects or the other >way around. I guess I can reverse it, but that would mean Effects will >have a new dependency. I’ll try not to mess up Jenkins’ build this time. Ah, I thought Effects already had dependencies on HTML. What is the exact dependency? Should there instead be some new interface in Core? The main components should not depend on stuff in other SWCs. It seems more ok for beads/plugins/add-ons to have dependencies on their host. Really, parents/hosts should not make presumptions about children/beads etc. It breaks deferred/lazy instantiation. The parent/host cannot be in the main module and load children/beads later if there is a dependency on those children/beads. So, consider having dependencies on an Interface instead of a Class. But it is better for Effects to depend on HTML than the other way around. -Alex
