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
