Dependency names - relative vs. absolute

Hi all, I have a question about how files are referenced in dependencies for a few of the Cesium files.

I’ve been creating examples in a folder directly beneath the “Cesium” project directory, and am now writing some modules of my own using the require.js syntax. Because I had to get out of my own directories to get back to the files in “Source”, I noticed that a few files weren’t loading correctly and tracked the problem down to their dependency definitions in other modules. These were referenced in the dependency list as, for example, ‘Core/DeveloperError’ rather than ‘./DeveloperError’ (example is from the JulianDate.js file).

I was wondering, is there was a reason these statements are different from the others? It appears that once I change to the relative path dependency, the modules load correctly, so I didn’t know if there was a particular reason the ‘Core/DeveloperError’ path was used instead of ‘./DeveloperError’. In case this is an issue, I’m starting to compile a list of files that use this absolute-path syntax. Thanks.

  • Brendan

You’re right, from inside the Cesium source code, we should always be using relative module IDs (that is, ‘./DeveloperError’ over ‘Core/DeveloperError’). This is so that the packages can be relocated.

This is probably a typo or copy/paste error on our end. I’ll get this corrected shortly.