Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>
> Sorry Berin, I don't clearly understand your concerns and how you what
> you want to move from TreeBuilder to RootProcessingNodeBuilder.
The chief concern is breaking down exactly what the TreeBuilder is for,
and having a set of interfaces/implementations that reflect that. I believe
that it would simplify the migration, future enhancements of the system.
>
> Also, I don't think we need an explicit ProcessingTree class. What will
> this class do that is different from a ProcessingNode?
Essentially what I was thinking was this:
The TreeBuilder as it stands is too complicated, and it seems to mix the
client concerns, internal use concerns, and processing concerns.
I would like to simplify it from a client perspective. If I were to use
the TreeBuilder, I would assume that the configuration provided by the
container would point to all the <tree-builder/> definition files that
are needed by the system. From there we need a way for the TreeBuilder
to access the proper.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
|