From: Unico Hommes > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > whats the current status regarding the tree processor in 2.2? > > > > As the tree processor is the central component that is > > required to run cocoon and as we currently just can't start > > 2.2 to test/implement anything else, I think we should see > > that we get a runnable 2.2 asap. > > > > What do you think about just installing the tree processor > from 2.1? > > This version should work in 2.2 and while someone is > concentrating on > > the treeprocessor for 2.2, all others can start with whatever they > > want (e.g. blocks). > > > > I was planning on working on the tree processor for 2.2 next > week and during the holidays. I've been extremely busy at > work for the past few weeks (am in the office right now) but > this will be over after tomorrow's deadline. > > I don't know how long it's going to take me to get the tree > processor into a workable state. The changes that need to be > made are extensive so there will be a test period after > things start to work as well. I'd say, I'll probably be able > to put in enough time to get it working over Xmas. > > I'm +1 on your proposal of installing the tree processor from > 2.1 if you think this will get you started on blocks sooner > than that. Else I'd advise to wait a little bit more. If we > do revert to 2.1 tree processor we will need to move the work > I have been doing componentized tree processor over to a > different package. > > Thoughts?
I'm +1 to give you the requested time frame. Have a deeper look into the code and give us feedback after Xmas how long it will take you. If you say it's too much time we can jump back then. I don't think we should do it now and if you say that it's too much work we can install the 2.1 version then. But I don't think it is a good idea to jump back right now. For all of you who want to start next week or over Xmas with blocks which are the main reason for our 2.2 repository: IIUC some parts of blocks can be implemented *without* a working core Cocoon. Don't forget to add an issue to Bugzilla to avoid duplicate implementation. -- Reinhard
