Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 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.
Agree that it mixes client (TreeProcessor) and internal
(ProcessingNodeBuilder) concerns. But I don't see where it mixes
processing concerns, since processing is only handled by the
ProcessingNodes.
> 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.
Sorry, I don't understand :-/
What are "all" the <tree-builder/> definition files? Do you mean
tree-processor-builtins.xml? Remember also that the "client" of the
TreeBuilder is only the TreeProcessor. Nobody else should need a
TreeBuilder.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
|