You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@xml.apache.org by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org> on 2004/01/04 12:23:55 UTC
Draft discussion of Federation proposal
Peoples,
Have put together a very rough draft of how a federation of projects
around XML might be created.
Caveat - it really is very draft, and purely there as a discussion
starter. Feel free to either post comments/thoughts back to the list or
to edit the document directly. (Note that this document does not yet
discuss next steps, such as agreements from each sub-project etc.)
All comments very welcome. The board requested a proposal by the Jan
board meeting (normally around the 20th of the month), so it would be
good to move the discussion forward - whether around this or another
proposal.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/FederationProposal
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Draft discussion of Federation proposal
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Concerning the proposed TLPs I'm wondering if FOP and Batik shouldn't go
> together somehow. Both projects deal with XML to graphics conversions.
> FOP currently has 2 Batik Transcoder implementations (additional output
> formats for Batik: PDF, PS/EPS). So there is some kind of overlap which
> needs to be dealt with sooner or later. One possibility is to move the
> transcoders over to Batik but parts of them are FOP-specific so both
> projects should somehow be able to work on the common code. Moving these
> out of FOP still means a dependency on FOP's PDF, PostScript and font
> support code. These might need to be separated into "Commons" projects
> to be accessible to both projects and to ensure compatibility and
> cooperation.
>
> Sorry if this is a bit technical and not entirely on-topic but I thought
> this may have to be addressed in this discussion.
No - that's some of the stuff we need to work through. Everyone needs
to be comfortable with what we are doing here, and if combining some of
the sub-projects makes sense for technical reasons, then lets do it!
>
> To be fully on-topic again: When the XML project becomes a federation of
> projects it may make sense to create pointers to other rather
> XML-oriented projects which live in the Jakarta area (like Jakarta ECS,
> Jakarta Commons Betwixt, Digester, Jelly, JXPath, there may be others).
>
Absolutely. There are some real opportunities with this kind of
approach that would be interesting to explore.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
RE: Draft discussion of Federation proposal
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:dev.jeremias@greenmail.ch]
> To: general@xml.apache.org
> Cc: fop-dev@xml.apache.org; batik-dev@xml.apache.org
>
Hi,
Not being subscribed to general@xml, I'm posting on fop-dev for the time
being (besides this, I'm a bit hesitant on whether I should even be
responding in the first place --if anyone thinks this should be added to the
wiki, just yell):
> Concerning the proposed TLPs I'm wondering if FOP and Batik shouldn't go
> together somehow. Both projects deal with XML to graphics conversions.
> FOP currently has 2 Batik Transcoder implementations (additional output
> formats for Batik: PDF, PS/EPS). So there is some kind of overlap which
> needs to be dealt with sooner or later. One possibility is to move the
> transcoders over to Batik but parts of them are FOP-specific so both
> projects should somehow be able to work on the common code. Moving these
> out of FOP still means a dependency on FOP's PDF, PostScript and font
> support code. These might need to be separated into "Commons" projects
> to be accessible to both projects and to ensure compatibility and
> cooperation.
I agree, and don't want to come across as greedy here, but when it comes to
use-cases, fact remains that you can have XSL-FO w/ embedded SVG, but not
the other way around. (and for that matter: AFAICT XSL-FO can be rendered to
SVG, but not the other way around... this could, of course, change if the
two projects in question were merged somehow) On top of that, judging solely
from user-list traffic, FOP seems to have had nearly thrice the attention
Batik has (dev has been almost seven times as busy). Ok, maybe it takes our
users three messages to explain them something, and maybe our developers are
even worse :) No, I definitely see this as a pointer to the wideness of
usage.
I certainly support the idea of integrating the two projects one way or
another. As I understand, there's a bunch of talented developers at
batik-dev, so I would certainly welcome a closer cooperation between the two
teams. In the long term, I think it would also be a benefit for the two
specs (SVG / XSL-FO), if they become more and more directed towards combined
usage, making SVG users aware of the possibilities of XSL-FO and vice versa.
A combined user-list might be a good starter...
Cheers,
Andreas
Re: Draft discussion of Federation proposal
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
(I'm CCing batik-dev and fop-dev once to invite everyone to discuss this
on general@xml. Please repond on general only and do not cross-post
unneccessarily.)
Concerning the proposed TLPs I'm wondering if FOP and Batik shouldn't go
together somehow. Both projects deal with XML to graphics conversions.
FOP currently has 2 Batik Transcoder implementations (additional output
formats for Batik: PDF, PS/EPS). So there is some kind of overlap which
needs to be dealt with sooner or later. One possibility is to move the
transcoders over to Batik but parts of them are FOP-specific so both
projects should somehow be able to work on the common code. Moving these
out of FOP still means a dependency on FOP's PDF, PostScript and font
support code. These might need to be separated into "Commons" projects
to be accessible to both projects and to ensure compatibility and
cooperation.
Sorry if this is a bit technical and not entirely on-topic but I thought
this may have to be addressed in this discussion.
To be fully on-topic again: When the XML project becomes a federation of
projects it may make sense to create pointers to other rather
XML-oriented projects which live in the Jakarta area (like Jakarta ECS,
Jakarta Commons Betwixt, Digester, Jelly, JXPath, there may be others).
As for the question about preference for XML Commons. I'd like to see
Apache Commons become more live. In this aspect XML Commons should IMO
go over to Apache Commons. On the other side, it may well be that Apache
Commons will, to a great extent, also be a federation project. And
moving too many project over there will create an oversight problem
there in time. I guess the decision here depends on the development of
Apache Commons and the projects intentions. So in the end I'm unsure
what to prefer.
In general, I currently don't see any showstoppers in Berin's proposal.
On 04.01.2004 12:23:55 Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Have put together a very rough draft of how a federation of projects
> around XML might be created.
>
> Caveat - it really is very draft, and purely there as a discussion
> starter. Feel free to either post comments/thoughts back to the list or
> to edit the document directly. (Note that this document does not yet
> discuss next steps, such as agreements from each sub-project etc.)
>
> All comments very welcome. The board requested a proposal by the Jan
> board meeting (normally around the 20th of the month), so it would be
> good to move the discussion forward - whether around this or another
> proposal.
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/FederationProposal
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Draft discussion of Federation proposal
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
(I'm CCing batik-dev and fop-dev once to invite everyone to discuss this
on general@xml. Please repond on general only and do not cross-post
unneccessarily.)
Concerning the proposed TLPs I'm wondering if FOP and Batik shouldn't go
together somehow. Both projects deal with XML to graphics conversions.
FOP currently has 2 Batik Transcoder implementations (additional output
formats for Batik: PDF, PS/EPS). So there is some kind of overlap which
needs to be dealt with sooner or later. One possibility is to move the
transcoders over to Batik but parts of them are FOP-specific so both
projects should somehow be able to work on the common code. Moving these
out of FOP still means a dependency on FOP's PDF, PostScript and font
support code. These might need to be separated into "Commons" projects
to be accessible to both projects and to ensure compatibility and
cooperation.
Sorry if this is a bit technical and not entirely on-topic but I thought
this may have to be addressed in this discussion.
To be fully on-topic again: When the XML project becomes a federation of
projects it may make sense to create pointers to other rather
XML-oriented projects which live in the Jakarta area (like Jakarta ECS,
Jakarta Commons Betwixt, Digester, Jelly, JXPath, there may be others).
As for the question about preference for XML Commons. I'd like to see
Apache Commons become more live. In this aspect XML Commons should IMO
go over to Apache Commons. On the other side, it may well be that Apache
Commons will, to a great extent, also be a federation project. And
moving too many project over there will create an oversight problem
there in time. I guess the decision here depends on the development of
Apache Commons and the projects intentions. So in the end I'm unsure
what to prefer.
In general, I currently don't see any showstoppers in Berin's proposal.
On 04.01.2004 12:23:55 Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Have put together a very rough draft of how a federation of projects
> around XML might be created.
>
> Caveat - it really is very draft, and purely there as a discussion
> starter. Feel free to either post comments/thoughts back to the list or
> to edit the document directly. (Note that this document does not yet
> discuss next steps, such as agreements from each sub-project etc.)
>
> All comments very welcome. The board requested a proposal by the Jan
> board meeting (normally around the 20th of the month), so it would be
> good to move the discussion forward - whether around this or another
> proposal.
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/FederationProposal
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Draft discussion of Federation proposal
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
(I'm CCing batik-dev and fop-dev once to invite everyone to discuss this
on general@xml. Please repond on general only and do not cross-post
unneccessarily.)
Concerning the proposed TLPs I'm wondering if FOP and Batik shouldn't go
together somehow. Both projects deal with XML to graphics conversions.
FOP currently has 2 Batik Transcoder implementations (additional output
formats for Batik: PDF, PS/EPS). So there is some kind of overlap which
needs to be dealt with sooner or later. One possibility is to move the
transcoders over to Batik but parts of them are FOP-specific so both
projects should somehow be able to work on the common code. Moving these
out of FOP still means a dependency on FOP's PDF, PostScript and font
support code. These might need to be separated into "Commons" projects
to be accessible to both projects and to ensure compatibility and
cooperation.
Sorry if this is a bit technical and not entirely on-topic but I thought
this may have to be addressed in this discussion.
To be fully on-topic again: When the XML project becomes a federation of
projects it may make sense to create pointers to other rather
XML-oriented projects which live in the Jakarta area (like Jakarta ECS,
Jakarta Commons Betwixt, Digester, Jelly, JXPath, there may be others).
As for the question about preference for XML Commons. I'd like to see
Apache Commons become more live. In this aspect XML Commons should IMO
go over to Apache Commons. On the other side, it may well be that Apache
Commons will, to a great extent, also be a federation project. And
moving too many project over there will create an oversight problem
there in time. I guess the decision here depends on the development of
Apache Commons and the projects intentions. So in the end I'm unsure
what to prefer.
In general, I currently don't see any showstoppers in Berin's proposal.
On 04.01.2004 12:23:55 Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Have put together a very rough draft of how a federation of projects
> around XML might be created.
>
> Caveat - it really is very draft, and purely there as a discussion
> starter. Feel free to either post comments/thoughts back to the list or
> to edit the document directly. (Note that this document does not yet
> discuss next steps, such as agreements from each sub-project etc.)
>
> All comments very welcome. The board requested a proposal by the Jan
> board meeting (normally around the 20th of the month), so it would be
> good to move the discussion forward - whether around this or another
> proposal.
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/FederationProposal
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org