noblemaster
commented
9 years ago If I follow you correctly, you want to make gdx-pay the "client"-functionality (non-server). And then add a gdx-pay-common which is used both for server & client!?
I believe that's a good idea, but I would change the names:
- gdx-pay-client: the client-only functionality (what you call "gdx-pay" in your suggestion). It extends from libgdx and can contain reflection code. Rather than calling it "gdx-pay", I would prefer to adding a "client" to make it clear it's for the client (i.e. libgdx-app).
- gdx-pay: Ditto now except reflection code. Rather than calling it "gdx-pay-common" as you proposed, I would keep it as is. We can call it "gdx-pay-common" as well if you prefer?
In any case, all we would add is a gdx-pay-client which extends libgdx and is used by the clients. We can move relevant stuff over from gdx-pay to gdx-pay-client. If everyone prefers that, we can finally rename gdx-pay to gdx-pay-common.
I believe that would work nicely? Comments?
alex-dorokhov
I found, that gdx-pay is not ready to be used with GWT. A project using gdx-pay just can't be compiled with GWT, because of using java reflections in PurchaseSystem. Libgdx provides ClassReflection utility to use reflections in cross-platform way. But in this case gdx-pay module will be dependent from libgdx, and then gdx-pay-server will also depend from libgdx. So I suggest to add additional module: gdx-pay-common, which will contain common classes for gdx-pay and gdx-pay-server, but will not depend from libgdx. So, gdx-pay-server will not depend from gdx-pay, but only from gdx-common. And gdx-pay will depend from libgdx. That will also simplify PurchaseSystem code. However it will make it impossible to use gdx-pay without libgdx. What do you think? Once you agree on the changes, I will implement them.