Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >whats the current status regarding the tree processor in 2.2? > > > > > > Stalled... I don't have much time for it now... > > >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). > > > > > > +1. > > We should move the current state of the 2.2 treeprocessor to > another package and reinstall the 2.1 one so they can live > their lives in parallel. This will also allow us to switch > between one and the other until the new one is considered stable. >
Agreed. > AFAIR, the main obstacle with the current treeprocessor > regarding Fortress was the use of Recomposable. Removing this > dependency isn't a hard work and I can do it rather quickly. > > For the new processor name, I was thinking about > "componentized processor" (because all statements are > component declarations) or "flat tree processor" (because the > tree is flattened). What do you think? > I find componentizedprocessor too long for a package name what about just 'processor' for a package name? Unico
