You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> on 2014/06/20 14:48:45 UTC
Re: PDFBox
Hi Simon,
Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that
time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on,
Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade
emerge, i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1
on going to 1.6.
However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated.
FOP is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of
different older operating systems including some mainframe systems,
where upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It
can be very difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems
and therefore make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java
on such systems. So until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling
reason to go to 7 or 8, I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0
release is a good plan.
BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an
impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella
Thanks,
Chris
On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>
> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched
> from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support
> for different fonts.
>
> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5,
> does Java 5 still need to be supported?
>
> Thanks
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
+1
Cheers!
Clay
--
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 5:48 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on, Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade emerge, i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1 on going to 1.6.
>
> However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated. FOP is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of different older operating systems including some mainframe systems, where upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It can be very difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems and therefore make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java on such systems. So until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling reason to go to 7 or 8, I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0 release is a good plan.
>
> BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>> On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>>
>> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different fonts.
>>
>> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does Java 5 still need to be supported?
>>
>> Thanks
>
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
+1
Cheers!
Clay
--
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 5:48 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on, Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade emerge, i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1 on going to 1.6.
>
> However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated. FOP is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of different older operating systems including some mainframe systems, where upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It can be very difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems and therefore make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java on such systems. So until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling reason to go to 7 or 8, I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0 release is a good plan.
>
> BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>> On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>>
>> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different fonts.
>>
>> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does Java 5 still need to be supported?
>>
>> Thanks
>
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
My +1
2014-06-20 14:48 GMT+02:00 Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>:
> Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that
> time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on,
> Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade emerge,
> i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1 on going to
> 1.6.
>
> However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated. FOP
> is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of
> different older operating systems including some mainframe systems, where
> upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It can be very
> difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems and therefore
> make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java on such systems. So
> until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling reason to go to 7 or 8,
> I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0 release is a good plan.
>
> BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an
> impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella
>
> On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote:
>>
>> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>>
>> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from
>> AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different
>> fonts.
>>
>> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does
>> Java 5 still need to be supported?
--
pascal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org