The tree structure needs to be solid. Some issues and thoughts...
Naming. Should all request nodes start with Request or end with RequestNode? Eg RequestOpeningRecordNode or OpeningRecordRequestNode. (Of course the same goes for response nodes.)
Tree. Is the tree to deep? Do we really need Tree/Record/Response? Is not Tree/Response or Tree/Record enough...
There is an OpeningRecordNode but it is not generic (not used in both request and response layouts). Putting it in the Tree/Record namespace make it look generic. If there are functionality here that is important lets make it an abstract class.
The tree structure needs to be solid. Some issues and thoughts...
Naming. Should all request nodes start with
Requestor end withRequestNode? EgRequestOpeningRecordNodeorOpeningRecordRequestNode. (Of course the same goes for response nodes.)Tree. Is the tree to deep? Do we really need
Tree/Record/Response? Is notTree/ResponseorTree/Recordenough...There is an
OpeningRecordNodebut it is not generic (not used in both request and response layouts). Putting it in theTree/Recordnamespace make it look generic. If there are functionality here that is important lets make it an abstract class.Document all tree changes in
UPDATING.md.