You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com> on 2007/01/02 20:44:06 UTC
Is ANT setup to read only DITA-OT1.1.2.1 for Derby files?
Hi -
I have downloaded the new DITA toolkit (DITA-OT1.1.3.1) and am
attempting to generate output using the new version. However when I
run "ant pdf.ref" I get a build failure and it refers to
DITA-OT1.1.2.1. So I am wondering if there is something in ANT that
specifically looks for DITA-OT1.1.2.1 and returns a build failure when
that version is not found.
If yes, is there a way to override it?
--
Laura Stewart
Re: Is ANT setup to read only DITA-OT1.1.2.1 for Derby files?
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>.
On 1/29/07, Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> dita.zip=${basedir}/lib/DITA-OT1.3.1_bin-ASL.zip
>
> All I changed was 1.1.2.1 to 1.3.1
>
> As I read this line, ANT is supposed to look for the zip file in the
> basedir, under the lib directory... but that is not where the zip file
> is located. And the name of the new zip file is
> DITA-OT1.3.1_fullpackage_bin.zip ...
You should put the zip file into the lib directory and then change the
property so that it matches the exact filename of the new zip file.
For testing, another alternative is to just put in the path to the zip
file whereever it lives on your machine, but before checkin it needs
to be generalized so that it will work for other people as well.
> Also, I asked the DITA toolkit Help forum about the index issue. Here
> is what I received back:
>
> </snip forum response about XEP>
>
> I am not sure that I understand all of what he is saying. Is he
> suggesting XEP as a replacement for ANT or something else?
He is suggesting replacing FOP (http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/)
that we use to generate the PDFs from the intermediary XSL-FO format
with RenderX's XEP product:
http://www.renderx.com/tools/xep.html
This is something that we could do, but we'd need to review the
license, get appropriate documentation, and put it to a vote.
The alternative, of course, is to help improve DITA so that it can use
FOP to generate indexes. Sounds like that is probably a major project
and would require someone with XSLT and Java coding experience, since
changes to FOP as well as the DITA toolkit would probably be
necessary.
andrew
Re: dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu>.
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On 2/2/07, scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I think the important thing, is to move over to fop.93 if possible.
>
> I've just attached a patch to DERBY-2373 that allows an upgrade to FOP
> 0.93. I would appreciate it if any doc builders out there would some
> spare time could try it out and make sure I didn't accidentally break
> anything in the PDF or HTML Book builds.
>
> andrew
>
First, everything seems to work for me.
I think the important thing is getting into the more standard fo: space,
even if the layout/flow has changed.
For example, the layout of getstarted.pdf with the older fop, page 20 is
the trademark page, in the new fop, page 21 is the last page. One can
notice the layout differences best on the cover, and the license, some
tables etc; which I like the new fop layout. I think the dita toolkit
would move to the newer fop in the future(?).
Looks good to me!
scott
Re: dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by "Dag H. Wanvik" <Da...@Sun.COM>.
Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 2/2/07, scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I think the important thing, is to move over to fop.93 if possible.
>
> I've just attached a patch to DERBY-2373 that allows an upgrade to FOP
> 0.93. I would appreciate it if any doc builders out there would some
> spare time could try it out and make sure I didn't accidentally break
> anything in the PDF or HTML Book builds.
Is there a reason why the testing jatadocs are not generated by the
javadoc target? I noticed they were not.. and I needed to consult them
on getting up top speed on the JUnit framework. So i just generated
them in place..
Dag
Re: dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>.
On 2/2/07, scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu> wrote:
>
> I think the important thing, is to move over to fop.93 if possible.
I've just attached a patch to DERBY-2373 that allows an upgrade to FOP
0.93. I would appreciate it if any doc builders out there would some
spare time could try it out and make sure I didn't accidentally break
anything in the PDF or HTML Book builds.
andrew
Re: dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu>.
Laura Stewart wrote:
> On 2/2/07, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
>> scott hutinger wrote:
> ...
>>
>> > I think the important thing, is to move over to fop.93 if possible. I
>> > started, but didn't know enough about the structure needed (although
>> > it's fairly simple), and got sidetracked. The updates to indexing etc
>> > in DITA are not related to standard fo xslt, as I looked at the
>> plugin.
>> > I think the current indexing is fine isn't it? I can't remember
>> much of
>> > what Jeff said needed fixed.
>> >
>> > scott
>
Neither one of these fix that problem. The fix is due to the dita
files in the derby docs /lib directory. These files currently replace
some of the DITA_OT files, so indexing and other items (I don't know
what all it fixes for the derby docs).
To move up to fop.93, the files in the /lib directory need to be
updated to work.
To move up to DITA1.3.1, the /lib directory in the derby docs should be
updated to the 1.3.1 code base of DITA. Which means looking at the
diffs between the current DITA version used currently, and 1.3.1. I
don't think much has happened in the FOP portion though. One could just
move up to DITA1.3.1, and replace the files with the current derby
files, and it might work. Although I can't remember if I tried that.
But they should really be updated to the 1.3.1 base, although I am not
certain what would be gained. I'm certain something would be gained.
Does anything exist in the current index that isn't working? I know
Jeff had a list of items, but don't know if he was having any problems
with indexing?
scott
> The indexes are in place in the DITA source files. However, the index
> it's self is not being generated. I am hoping that either FOP .93 or
> te 1.3 toolkit will fix that problem :-)
>
Re: dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 2/2/07, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> scott hutinger wrote:
...
>
> > I think the important thing, is to move over to fop.93 if possible. I
> > started, but didn't know enough about the structure needed (although
> > it's fairly simple), and got sidetracked. The updates to indexing etc
> > in DITA are not related to standard fo xslt, as I looked at the plugin.
> > I think the current indexing is fine isn't it? I can't remember much of
> > what Jeff said needed fixed.
> >
> > scott
The indexes are in place in the DITA source files. However, the index
it's self is not being generated. I am hoping that either FOP .93 or
te 1.3 toolkit will fix that problem :-)
--
Laura Stewart
Re: dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> scott hutinger wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Jean knows more about the DITA ASL license, as she is the one that got
>>>> the ASL stuff going in DITA. But I think the move to 1.3.1 wouldn't
>>>> work until the ASL license anyway.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the heads up about the license -- I'll follow up.
>>>
>>
>> The DITA-OT1.3.1 download includes both licenses: CPL and Apache
>> License, Version 2.0.
>>
>> The relnotes.txt file says this:
>>
>>
>>> 5.License bundling: To reduce the duplication of builds on Sourceforge
>>> in which the only difference was the license provided in each, both
>>> the Apache and CPL licenses are included in root directory of the
>>> Toolkit. Use the one that applies to your situation.
>>>
>
> erm ... more relevant than relnotes.txt file (I'm awake, really), the
> license.txt says in part:
>
>
Ok, sorry I didn't spot that information.
thanks,
scott
>> The DITA Open Toolkit is licensed for use, at the user's election, under the
>> Common Public License v1.0 or the Apache Software Foundation License v2.0.
>>
>
> Copies of both licenses are provided at the root level of the distribution:
>
> APACHE-LICENSE-2_0.html
> CommonPublicLicense-v10.html
>
> -jean
>
>
Re: dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>scott hutinger wrote:
> ...
>>>Jean knows more about the DITA ASL license, as she is the one that got
>>>the ASL stuff going in DITA. But I think the move to 1.3.1 wouldn't
>>>work until the ASL license anyway.
>>
>>Thanks for the heads up about the license -- I'll follow up.
>
> The DITA-OT1.3.1 download includes both licenses: CPL and Apache
> License, Version 2.0.
>
> The relnotes.txt file says this:
>
>> 5.License bundling: To reduce the duplication of builds on Sourceforge
>> in which the only difference was the license provided in each, both
>> the Apache and CPL licenses are included in root directory of the
>> Toolkit. Use the one that applies to your situation.
erm ... more relevant than relnotes.txt file (I'm awake, really), the
license.txt says in part:
> The DITA Open Toolkit is licensed for use, at the user's election, under the
> Common Public License v1.0 or the Apache Software Foundation License v2.0.
Copies of both licenses are provided at the root level of the distribution:
APACHE-LICENSE-2_0.html
CommonPublicLicense-v10.html
-jean
Re: dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> scott hutinger wrote:
...
>>Jean knows more about the DITA ASL license, as she is the one that got
>>the ASL stuff going in DITA. But I think the move to 1.3.1 wouldn't
>>work until the ASL license anyway.
>
> Thanks for the heads up about the license -- I'll follow up.
The DITA-OT1.3.1 download includes both licenses: CPL and Apache
License, Version 2.0.
The relnotes.txt file says this:
> 5.License bundling: To reduce the duplication of builds on Sourceforge
> in which the only difference was the license provided in each, both
> the Apache and CPL licenses are included in root directory of the
> Toolkit. Use the one that applies to your situation.
-jean
Re: dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
scott hutinger wrote:
> I'm looked into moving to the newer .93 fop, which removes some of the
> older fox (fop extensions) and moves into the fo name space.
> I looked at a lot of different 'things'. I did find that DITA-OT1.3.1,
> (which doesn't have a release in ASL that I can see), uses fox:label
> etc, which is why the default build with fop.93 doesn't generate
> bookmarks etc in OT1.3.1, and I think some patches still fix the
> indexing problems with dita.
>
> Jean knows more about the DITA ASL license, as she is the one that got
> the ASL stuff going in DITA. But I think the move to 1.3.1 wouldn't
> work until the ASL license anyway.
Thanks for the heads up about the license -- I'll follow up.
-jean
> I think the important thing, is to move over to fop.93 if possible. I
> started, but didn't know enough about the structure needed (although
> it's fairly simple), and got sidetracked. The updates to indexing etc
> in DITA are not related to standard fo xslt, as I looked at the plugin.
> I think the current indexing is fine isn't it? I can't remember much of
> what Jeff said needed fixed.
>
> scott
>
dita 1.3.1 (no asl?) and fop.93
Posted by scott hutinger <S-...@wiu.edu>.
I'm looked into moving to the newer .93 fop, which removes some of the
older fox (fop extensions) and moves into the fo name space.
I looked at a lot of different 'things'. I did find that DITA-OT1.3.1,
(which doesn't have a release in ASL that I can see), uses fox:label
etc, which is why the default build with fop.93 doesn't generate
bookmarks etc in OT1.3.1, and I think some patches still fix the
indexing problems with dita.
Jean knows more about the DITA ASL license, as she is the one that got
the ASL stuff going in DITA. But I think the move to 1.3.1 wouldn't
work until the ASL license anyway.
I think the important thing, is to move over to fop.93 if possible. I
started, but didn't know enough about the structure needed (although
it's fairly simple), and got sidetracked. The updates to indexing etc
in DITA are not related to standard fo xslt, as I looked at the plugin.
I think the current indexing is fine isn't it? I can't remember much of
what Jeff said needed fixed.
scott
Re: Is ANT setup to read only DITA-OT1.1.2.1 for Derby files?
Posted by Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 1/2/07, Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, and yes. docs.properties at the top of the tree defines two
> properties that allow Ant to locate the DITA toolkit: dita.dir, the
> location of the expanded DITA toolkit directory, and dita.zip, the
> location for the unexpanded zip file to allow for automatic expansion
> of the DITA toolkit from the zip. Change these two properties to point
> to the new locations of the toolkit/zip file and Ant will call into
> the toolkit buildfiles in the new location.
>
> andrew
>
Andrew - I changed the doc.properties file but I think that there
might be something wrong with this line:
dita.zip=${basedir}/lib/DITA-OT1.3.1_bin-ASL.zip
All I changed was 1.1.2.1 to 1.3.1
As I read this line, ANT is supposed to look for the zip file in the
basedir, under the lib directory... but that is not where the zip file
is located. And the name of the new zip file is
DITA-OT1.3.1_fullpackage_bin.zip ...
Also, I asked the DITA toolkit Help forum about the index issue. Here
is what I received back:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Good question, Laura. Indexing for the older FOP-based PDF generator
has not been improved lately. If you download and install the FO 1.2.1
transform plugin, it has the capability to produce very nice indexes.
It currently employs XEP as its output formatter, as this formatter
was way ahead of the function of FOP 0.20.5 to which the older FO
transform was written at the time (and which I think you are currently
using). This "pdf2" transform is clearly the single code base we want
to invest in for future maintenance. However, because that indexing
capability depends on XEP-specific extensions in the transforms, you
cannot currently >create equivalent indexes for FOP-based PDF with it.
IIRC, XEP provides a free license that allows its use for Open Source
and Standards-based projects.
If indexing for FOP-based output is a high priority for Derby, despite
the free
licensing on XEP for open source, then let me know. Indexing is a
tough problem, otherwise we would have solved it more generally by
now. But if you can suggest resources or XSLT algorithms that can help
solve issues like terms with multiple pointers to the same page, then
we might do a sizing based on that knowledge, and see if we can work
it into a future update.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am not sure that I understand all of what he is saying. Is he
suggesting XEP as a replacement for ANT or something else?
--
Laura Stewart
Re: Is ANT setup to read only DITA-OT1.1.2.1 for Derby files?
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>.
On 1/2/07, Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I have downloaded the new DITA toolkit (DITA-OT1.1.3.1) and am
> attempting to generate output using the new version. However when I
> run "ant pdf.ref" I get a build failure and it refers to
> DITA-OT1.1.2.1. So I am wondering if there is something in ANT that
> specifically looks for DITA-OT1.1.2.1 and returns a build failure when
> that version is not found.
>
> If yes, is there a way to override it?
Yes, and yes. docs.properties at the top of the tree defines two
properties that allow Ant to locate the DITA toolkit: dita.dir, the
location of the expanded DITA toolkit directory, and dita.zip, the
location for the unexpanded zip file to allow for automatic expansion
of the DITA toolkit from the zip. Change these two properties to point
to the new locations of the toolkit/zip file and Ant will call into
the toolkit buildfiles in the new location.
andrew