Re: circular dependency between libraries

# jochem@iamjochem.com / 2007-01-16 13:56:01 +0100: > my gut says that it would be easiest to just keep to seperate copies of > the utility class(es) one for each project, although it kind of depends > on how large & complicated the utlity is ... this would remove all the described > problems and leave you with only the 'slightly' inelegant situation where you > have to, internally, sync the [relevant parts of the] 2 codebases now and again. > > given that there is a possibility of different version of the utility being > required (as per you 'That is evil' reply) the '2 seperate copies of the > codebase' > approach might be simplest and most reliable way of tackling the problem ... > again (AFAIKT) this mostly comes down to you personally being able to accept > the relative inelegance of the solution. It's two if you only count Amock, but I already have another potential use. If PHP had namespaces, I'd be happy. If PHP had a preprocessor, I'd use that to get around the lack of namespaces and give each client a non-conflicting, private version of the utility. Simple "copy&rename" as you suggest would seem to lead to maintenance hell (read: bugs). > I'm trying to act as an extra braincell here - forgive me if what I'm > saying is way too simple to be worthwhile :-) Don't worry, I'm grateful for the input! And no, not too simple. After all I'm not looking for something "sufficiently complicated", I'm looking for something so easy even I won't screw it! -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991