You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> on 2012/08/08 03:47:51 UTC
plans for 1.1 release
I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you believe are
*essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to releasing fop1.1. There
has been a suggestion to update fop-pdf-images prior to an fop1.1 release.
Is there someone who would volunteer to do that [real soon now]? Or is it
better to wait until after fop1.1 is released? Any other "must fix" bugs in
1.1rc1?
G.
Re: plans for 1.1 release
Posted by Martin Edge <Ma...@intellimail.com.au>.
Thanks Chris - will do - will make my life a lot easier :)
---------------
Martin Edge
---------------
On 09/08/2012, at 9:27 PM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 00:52, Martin Edge wrote:
>> Hey Chris
>
> Hi Martin,
>
>>
>> I had found PDF image in postscript (presumably whatever conversion is going on) so poor that I presumed it was not meant to work. I have pretty much coded around it converting the PDFs to images myself.
>
> Most of the processing of the PDF Images in PS output is handled by PDFBox. You should find that upgrading your PDFBox version sufficient to improve the quality of the Postscript output. PDFBox is a very active project and they've completed several releases since 2010.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>> Arguably it has been a while since a test - I will see if I can find my old tests and dust them off.
>>
>> The font thing will be handy - although I have been getting good at managing TTF and type 1 fonts finally ;-)
>>
>> Thanks for getting back to me
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------
>> Martin Edge
>> ---------------
>>
>> On 08/08/2012, at 11:11 PM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/08/2012 12:16, Martin Edge wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Martin
>>>
>>>> Does it work a little better with postscript now?
>>> I'm sorry but I don't recall exactly what issues you were having with Postscript output with FOP? Can you be more specific. There have been several bug fixes to FOP generated PS since the v1.0 release. The biggest change is the introduction of support for embedding TTF Fonts in the Postscript.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------
>>>> Martin Edge
>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>> On 08/08/2012, at 8:20 PM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/08/2012 02:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you believe are *essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to releasing fop1.1. There has been a suggestion to update fop-pdf-images prior to an fop1.1 release. Is there someone who would volunteer to do that [real soon now]? Or is it better to wait until after fop1.1 is released? Any other "must fix" bugs in 1.1rc1?
>>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion. I have been meaning to send a similar e-mail for the last couple of days. In my view the PDF Image Loading issue (53468) is high priority. A lot of users will want to use this plug-in with FOP. We are big users of the plug-in too, but don't use the released FOP versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can assign Rob to work on it since he is available, but he is not a committer so won't be able to process the Patch already submitted to 53468. Vincent can work on it in about 2 weeks time, so I guess who does it depends on your definition of "real soon now"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess your call for volunteers means you don't have any free time to invest in that yourself?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not aware of any other high priority bugs. User feedback on 1.1rc1 appears to be a little muted compared to previous releases. Hopefully that is a sign of improved code quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>> G.
>>>>>>
>>
>
Re: plans for 1.1 release
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 09/08/2012 00:52, Martin Edge wrote:
> Hey Chris
Hi Martin,
>
>
> I had found PDF image in postscript (presumably whatever conversion is going on) so poor that I presumed it was not meant to work. I have pretty much coded around it converting the PDFs to images myself.
Most of the processing of the PDF Images in PS output is handled by
PDFBox. You should find that upgrading your PDFBox version sufficient to
improve the quality of the Postscript output. PDFBox is a very active
project and they've completed several releases since 2010.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Arguably it has been a while since a test - I will see if I can find my old tests and dust them off.
>
> The font thing will be handy - although I have been getting good at managing TTF and type 1 fonts finally ;-)
>
> Thanks for getting back to me
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> ---------------
> Martin Edge
> ---------------
>
> On 08/08/2012, at 11:11 PM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/08/2012 12:16, Martin Edge wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin
>>
>>> Does it work a little better with postscript now?
>> I'm sorry but I don't recall exactly what issues you were having with Postscript output with FOP? Can you be more specific. There have been several bug fixes to FOP generated PS since the v1.0 release. The biggest change is the introduction of support for embedding TTF Fonts in the Postscript.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------
>>> Martin Edge
>>> ---------------
>>>
>>> On 08/08/2012, at 8:20 PM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/08/2012 02:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you believe are *essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to releasing fop1.1. There has been a suggestion to update fop-pdf-images prior to an fop1.1 release. Is there someone who would volunteer to do that [real soon now]? Or is it better to wait until after fop1.1 is released? Any other "must fix" bugs in 1.1rc1?
>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion. I have been meaning to send a similar e-mail for the last couple of days. In my view the PDF Image Loading issue (53468) is high priority. A lot of users will want to use this plug-in with FOP. We are big users of the plug-in too, but don't use the released FOP versions.
>>>>
>>>> I can assign Rob to work on it since he is available, but he is not a committer so won't be able to process the Patch already submitted to 53468. Vincent can work on it in about 2 weeks time, so I guess who does it depends on your definition of "real soon now"?
>>>>
>>>> I guess your call for volunteers means you don't have any free time to invest in that yourself?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of any other high priority bugs. User feedback on 1.1rc1 appears to be a little muted compared to previous releases. Hopefully that is a sign of improved code quality.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>> G.
>>>>>
>
Re: plans for 1.1 release
Posted by Martin Edge <Ma...@intellimail.com.au>.
Hey Chris
I had found PDF image in postscript (presumably whatever conversion is going on) so poor that I presumed it was not meant to work. I have pretty much coded around it converting the PDFs to images myself.
Arguably it has been a while since a test - I will see if I can find my old tests and dust them off.
The font thing will be handy - although I have been getting good at managing TTF and type 1 fonts finally ;-)
Thanks for getting back to me
Martin
---------------
Martin Edge
---------------
On 08/08/2012, at 11:11 PM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 12:16, Martin Edge wrote:
>
> Hi Martin
>
>> Does it work a little better with postscript now?
>
> I'm sorry but I don't recall exactly what issues you were having with Postscript output with FOP? Can you be more specific. There have been several bug fixes to FOP generated PS since the v1.0 release. The biggest change is the introduction of support for embedding TTF Fonts in the Postscript.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------
>> Martin Edge
>> ---------------
>>
>> On 08/08/2012, at 8:20 PM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/08/2012 02:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>
>>>> I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you believe are *essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to releasing fop1.1. There has been a suggestion to update fop-pdf-images prior to an fop1.1 release. Is there someone who would volunteer to do that [real soon now]? Or is it better to wait until after fop1.1 is released? Any other "must fix" bugs in 1.1rc1?
>>> Thanks for starting this discussion. I have been meaning to send a similar e-mail for the last couple of days. In my view the PDF Image Loading issue (53468) is high priority. A lot of users will want to use this plug-in with FOP. We are big users of the plug-in too, but don't use the released FOP versions.
>>>
>>> I can assign Rob to work on it since he is available, but he is not a committer so won't be able to process the Patch already submitted to 53468. Vincent can work on it in about 2 weeks time, so I guess who does it depends on your definition of "real soon now"?
>>>
>>> I guess your call for volunteers means you don't have any free time to invest in that yourself?
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of any other high priority bugs. User feedback on 1.1rc1 appears to be a little muted compared to previous releases. Hopefully that is a sign of improved code quality.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>> G.
>>>>
>>
>
Re: plans for 1.1 release
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 08/08/2012 12:16, Martin Edge wrote:
Hi Martin
> Does it work a little better with postscript now?
I'm sorry but I don't recall exactly what issues you were having with
Postscript output with FOP? Can you be more specific. There have been
several bug fixes to FOP generated PS since the v1.0 release. The
biggest change is the introduction of support for embedding TTF Fonts in
the Postscript.
Thanks,
Chris
>
>
>
> ---------------
> Martin Edge
> ---------------
>
> On 08/08/2012, at 8:20 PM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/08/2012 02:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>> Hi Glenn,
>>
>>> I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you believe are *essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to releasing fop1.1. There has been a suggestion to update fop-pdf-images prior to an fop1.1 release. Is there someone who would volunteer to do that [real soon now]? Or is it better to wait until after fop1.1 is released? Any other "must fix" bugs in 1.1rc1?
>> Thanks for starting this discussion. I have been meaning to send a similar e-mail for the last couple of days. In my view the PDF Image Loading issue (53468) is high priority. A lot of users will want to use this plug-in with FOP. We are big users of the plug-in too, but don't use the released FOP versions.
>>
>> I can assign Rob to work on it since he is available, but he is not a committer so won't be able to process the Patch already submitted to 53468. Vincent can work on it in about 2 weeks time, so I guess who does it depends on your definition of "real soon now"?
>>
>> I guess your call for volunteers means you don't have any free time to invest in that yourself?
>>
>> I'm not aware of any other high priority bugs. User feedback on 1.1rc1 appears to be a little muted compared to previous releases. Hopefully that is a sign of improved code quality.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>> G.
>>>
>
Re: plans for 1.1 release
Posted by Martin Edge <Ma...@intellimail.com.au>.
Does it work a little better with postscript now?
---------------
Martin Edge
---------------
On 08/08/2012, at 8:20 PM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 02:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> Hi Glenn,
>
>> I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you believe are *essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to releasing fop1.1. There has been a suggestion to update fop-pdf-images prior to an fop1.1 release. Is there someone who would volunteer to do that [real soon now]? Or is it better to wait until after fop1.1 is released? Any other "must fix" bugs in 1.1rc1?
>
> Thanks for starting this discussion. I have been meaning to send a similar e-mail for the last couple of days. In my view the PDF Image Loading issue (53468) is high priority. A lot of users will want to use this plug-in with FOP. We are big users of the plug-in too, but don't use the released FOP versions.
>
> I can assign Rob to work on it since he is available, but he is not a committer so won't be able to process the Patch already submitted to 53468. Vincent can work on it in about 2 weeks time, so I guess who does it depends on your definition of "real soon now"?
>
> I guess your call for volunteers means you don't have any free time to invest in that yourself?
>
> I'm not aware of any other high priority bugs. User feedback on 1.1rc1 appears to be a little muted compared to previous releases. Hopefully that is a sign of improved code quality.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>> G.
>>
>
Re: plans for 1.1 release
Posted by Matthias Reischenbacher <ma...@gmx.at>.
Hi Glenn,
besides the fop-pdf-images release I consider the following two bugzilla
issues as important before doing a 1.1 release:
* https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45715
--> I just reopened this issue because it breaks page breaks on table
elements.
* https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48063
--> Since the issue is causing an endless loop, which is not really not
nice ;-), it would be good if someone can process my patch. Thanks to
Luis for adding a proper layout engine test case. My fix might not be
perfect but it fixes at least the endless loop.
Best regards,
Matthias
On 08.08.2012 12:51, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:20 AM, Chris Bowditch
> <bowditch_chris@hotmail.com <ma...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2012 02:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> Hi Glenn,
>
>
> I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you
> believe are *essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to
> releasing fop1.1. There has been a suggestion to update
> fop-pdf-images prior to an fop1.1 release. Is there someone who
> would volunteer to do that [real soon now]? Or is it better to
> wait until after fop1.1 is released? Any other "must fix" bugs
> in 1.1rc1?
>
>
> Thanks for starting this discussion. I have been meaning to send a
> similar e-mail for the last couple of days. In my view the PDF Image
> Loading issue (53468) is high priority. A lot of users will want to
> use this plug-in with FOP. We are big users of the plug-in too, but
> don't use the released FOP versions.
>
> I can assign Rob to work on it since he is available, but he is not
> a committer so won't be able to process the Patch already submitted
> to 53468. Vincent can work on it in about 2 weeks time, so I guess
> who does it depends on your definition of "real soon now"?
>
>
> I guess your call for volunteers means you don't have any free time
> to invest in that yourself?
>
>
> If Rob could apply the patch in his working copy and verify it fixes the
> bug and doesn't produce any regressions, then I can commit it. I haven't
> personally used the fop-pdf-images extension, so I'd prefer to have
> someone who is more familiar with it do a review of the patch.
Re: plans for 1.1 release
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:20 AM, Chris Bowditch
<bo...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 02:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> Hi Glenn,
>
>
> I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you believe
>> are *essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to releasing fop1.1.
>> There has been a suggestion to update fop-pdf-images prior to an fop1.1
>> release. Is there someone who would volunteer to do that [real soon now]?
>> Or is it better to wait until after fop1.1 is released? Any other "must
>> fix" bugs in 1.1rc1?
>>
>
> Thanks for starting this discussion. I have been meaning to send a similar
> e-mail for the last couple of days. In my view the PDF Image Loading issue
> (53468) is high priority. A lot of users will want to use this plug-in with
> FOP. We are big users of the plug-in too, but don't use the released FOP
> versions.
>
> I can assign Rob to work on it since he is available, but he is not a
> committer so won't be able to process the Patch already submitted to 53468.
> Vincent can work on it in about 2 weeks time, so I guess who does it
> depends on your definition of "real soon now"?
>
>
> I guess your call for volunteers means you don't have any free time to
> invest in that yourself?
>
If Rob could apply the patch in his working copy and verify it fixes the
bug and doesn't produce any regressions, then I can commit it. I haven't
personally used the fop-pdf-images extension, so I'd prefer to have someone
who is more familiar with it do a review of the patch.
Re: plans for 1.1 release
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 08/08/2012 02:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
Hi Glenn,
> I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you
> believe are *essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to
> releasing fop1.1. There has been a suggestion to update fop-pdf-images
> prior to an fop1.1 release. Is there someone who would volunteer to do
> that [real soon now]? Or is it better to wait until after fop1.1 is
> released? Any other "must fix" bugs in 1.1rc1?
Thanks for starting this discussion. I have been meaning to send a
similar e-mail for the last couple of days. In my view the PDF Image
Loading issue (53468) is high priority. A lot of users will want to use
this plug-in with FOP. We are big users of the plug-in too, but don't
use the released FOP versions.
I can assign Rob to work on it since he is available, but he is not a
committer so won't be able to process the Patch already submitted to
53468. Vincent can work on it in about 2 weeks time, so I guess who does
it depends on your definition of "real soon now"?
I guess your call for volunteers means you don't have any free time to
invest in that yourself?
I'm not aware of any other high priority bugs. User feedback on 1.1rc1
appears to be a little muted compared to previous releases. Hopefully
that is a sign of improved code quality.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> G.
>