Re: marketing Defoe (was: another nose for the grindstone)

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>]

Peter,

it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you
did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with
FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of
making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...

On 17.01.2005 06:01:27 Peter B. West wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> Project Defoe <http://defoe.sourceforge.net/>, formerly Fop alt-design, 
> is focussed on a Java 2D renderer, robust and complete.  By complete I 
> mean, in particular, able to correctly handle last-page, keeps, table 
> auto-layout and large files.  Don't make the mistake of thinking that, 
> because FOP has been around for a long time, it is only the place to be 
> for open source XSL-FO development.  Rather, ask why, if it has been 
> around for such a long time, these problems haven't been solved.  Don't 
> make the mistake of thinking that all software problems are solved by 
> simply applying more resources.
> 
> Having said that, let me add that the project seems to have found its 
> shepherd, in the form of Finn Bock.  Many of the long-standing 
> innovations of alt-design in the property handling have at last been 
> introduced by Finn, who has the happy knack of being able to completely 
> rewrite large chunks of FOP by applying a wide-ranging but complete set 
> of changes.  He may well solve FOP's remaining critical problems in the 
> same way.
> 
> The point is, that FOP needs a major design overhaul.  I'm doing that at 
> Defoe, and Finn is doing it, piecemeal, at FOP.  His focus though is not 
> on Java 2D, and getting a "complete and robust" implementation of the 2D 
> renderer will depend on Finn's new design.  If you want to know more 
> about where FOP is headed, ask Finn.
> 
> Defoe is Java 5.0 based.  If that doesn't work for you, don't bother 
> with Defoe.  Otherwise, if you are interested in avenues for your XSL-FO 
> development efforts, I am happy to talk to you.



Jeremias Maerki

Re: marketing Defoe

["Peter B. West" <li...@pbw.id.au>]

Glen Mazza wrote:
> (Don't let Peter rattle you, Jeremias--he's just
> jealous that I've found more XSL spec bugs than him. 
> ;)

You have a lead I am unlikely to overhaul.

> Our delays are mostly related to advanced issues
> concerning layout, and the type of parser used doesn't
> have much effect on this issue.

Time will tell.

> So I don't share
> Peter's conviction that FOP is in need of a major
> design overhaul--or that Defoe's layout is as complete
> as it needs to be either, for the matter.

There is no Defoe layout ... yet...

> Both sides
> have a lot of work to do.

...so yes, there is a lot of work to be done on Defoe.

> Glen

Peter

PS Thanks to Clay for the feedback.

Re: marketing Defoe

[Glen Mazza <gr...@yahoo.com>]

(Don't let Peter rattle you, Jeremias--he's just
jealous that I've found more XSL spec bugs than him. 
;)

Our delays are mostly related to advanced issues
concerning layout, and the type of parser used doesn't
have much effect on this issue.  So I don't share
Peter's conviction that FOP is in need of a major
design overhaul--or that Defoe's layout is as complete
as it needs to be either, for the matter.  Both sides
have a lot of work to do.

Glen


--- Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch> wrote:

> Peter,
> 
> this is not about the question whether I disagree
> with the assessment.
> You might be right, you might be wrong. I can't
> tell, yet, because I'm
> still working my way into the new layout engine. My
> reaction was
> triggered by the way you said these things, not by
> any technical
> statement. But as I said, I may be overreacting and
> I may not have
> filtered everything through all the "is-written" and
> "is-in-foreign-language" filters.
> 

Re: marketing Defoe

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>]

Peter,

this is not about the question whether I disagree with the assessment.
You might be right, you might be wrong. I can't tell, yet, because I'm
still working my way into the new layout engine. My reaction was
triggered by the way you said these things, not by any technical
statement. But as I said, I may be overreacting and I may not have
filtered everything through all the "is-written" and
"is-in-foreign-language" filters.

On 17.01.2005 12:07:47 Peter B. West wrote:
> Jeremias,
> 
> Do you disagree with the assessment?  Clearly people might, but I didn't 
> say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of FOP.  If it 
> is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of play?  Finn 
> has already talked about a radically different approach in order to 
> solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present you with a 
> swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future.  I just hope 
> he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot.  One of its underlying 
> features will be what is effectively a stream parsing mechanism.  It's 
> acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there being no other 
> design contenders, will be particularly galling for me, in light of the 
> the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it, as I still do.
> 
> I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues.
> 
> Peter
> 
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Peter,
> > 
> > it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you
> > did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with
> > FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of
> > making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...
> > 



Jeremias Maerki

Re: marketing Defoe

[The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>]

Peter,

FWIW, I was shocked by the tone of your statement as well. Not so much 
by any misleading or such. Rather, it was more in the way that I'm 
shocked by the manner that, in the US companies can discuss differences 
with other products in their advertisements.

Had you also 'advertised' FOray in the same way you promoted Defoe, it 
might've taken a bit of the tone down (I don't know--you didn't mention 
FOray so I don't *know* how it would've come off).

In any case, as I suspect is true for with the rest of the FOP team, I 
am grateful to your continued contributions to the FOP project, and I 
hope your contribution will continue.

Web Maestro Clay

On Jan 17, 2005, at 3:07 AM, Peter B. West wrote:
> Jeremias,
>
> Do you disagree with the assessment?  Clearly people might, but I 
> didn't say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of 
> FOP.  If it is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of 
> play?  Finn has already talked about a radically different approach in 
> order to solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present 
> you with a swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future. 
>  I just hope he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot.  One of 
> its underlying features will be what is effectively a stream parsing 
> mechanism.  It's acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there 
> being no other design contenders, will be particularly galling for me, 
> in light of the the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it, 
> as I still do.
>
> I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues.
>
> Peter
>
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>> Peter,
>> it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you
>> did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with
>> FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of
>> making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...
>
>

Web Maestro Clay
-- 
<th...@gmail.com> - <http://homepage.mac.com/webmaestro/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet

Re: marketing Defoe

["Peter B. West" <li...@pbw.id.au>]

Jeremias,

Do you disagree with the assessment?  Clearly people might, but I didn't 
say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of FOP.  If it 
is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of play?  Finn 
has already talked about a radically different approach in order to 
solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present you with a 
swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future.  I just hope 
he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot.  One of its underlying 
features will be what is effectively a stream parsing mechanism.  It's 
acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there being no other 
design contenders, will be particularly galling for me, in light of the 
the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it, as I still do.

I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues.

Peter

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you
> did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with
> FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of
> making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...
>