[TreeDL-users] feedback on configurability improvement needed

[Alexey D. <de...@is...>]

Hi all,

In upcoming 1.1 release in addition to C# generation 
and support library I want to improve configurability
of translation. The main issues are:

1. Node interface.
2. Base class name.
3. Default base class name.
4. Visitor interface name.

-----

1. Node interface implements Attributed interface.
In fact, there are no dependencies between these interfaces.

If no objections will be raised, in atplib-3.0.1 
only NodeClass (default node implementation class) will 
implement Attributed, not Node interface.

2. When base class name is specified, explicit 
"implements com.unitesk.atp.tree.Node" is added during translation
of tree node. It seems to be not convenient when TreeDL is used
only as model description, when standard interfaces not used.

If no objections will be raised, in treedl-1.1 it will be cancelled.

3. 'default.class' global property in TreeDL tree description is used to specify
base class for all node types without ": ..." part. It slightly conflicts
with old behaviour - when 'default.class' property is not specified,
NodeClass is used. Now, to cancel NodeClass usage, user need to specify
[ default.class = "" ]

What is better - the current or fair behaviour when user should specify
default.class = "com.unitesk.atp.tree.NodeClass" to use good old default 
node implementation?

4. Visitor interface implementation (accept() method) is generated in all cases.
But when base class that don't implement this interface is specified,
it is not right. Now, if 'visitor.name' global property in TreeDL tree description 
is not specified, default name <TreeName>_Visitor is used.

If no objections will be raised, in treedl-1.1, visitor interface implementation
will be generated only if 'visitor.name' property is specified.

I'm waiting for your feedback

Regards,
Alexey

-----
Alexey Demakov
TreeDL: Tree Description Language: http://treedl.sourceforge.net
RedVerst Group: http://www.unitesk.com