# Handling of package inter-dependency

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/handling-of-package-inter-dependency/64568>\
**Category:** New to Julia\
**Tags:** package, argument\
**Created:** [July 13, 2021, 1:12pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/handling-of-package-inter-dependency/64568 "2021-07-13T13:12:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BambOoxX](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/bambooxx/32/22179_2.png) [@BambOoxX](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/BambOoxX)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2021, 4:48pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/handling-of-package-inter-dependency/64568/8 "2021-07-13T16:48:56Z")

</div>

@Sukera

> [@Sukera](#):
>
> I have to admit though, it feels kind of wrong to define structs on the fly based on messages from some remote process, perhaps there’s a better abstraction to be found here?

Sorry, I missed this part at first…

Just to be clear, the target types are already defined, I am just modifying instances here. If the data source were not trustworthy, that would be bad indeed, but this is not the case here, as everything happens locally. And anything that is not an authorized type/instruction is discarded.

Regarding the `Container` this choice is based on previous discussions, though I can’t recall where, probably on Slack (edit: it was there ["Locally global" variable? - #19 by BambOoxX](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/locally-global-variable/60471/19))… It was advertised as the most appropriate choice for this kind of stuff. What would you have in mind instead ?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/handling-of-package-inter-dependency/64568)._