You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pdfbox.apache.org by Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de> on 2013/03/03 18:33:40 UTC
New PDFBox 1.8.0 release ?
Hi,
I guess everybody agrees on the fact that a new PDFBox release is overdue!
There are a lot of improvements and bugfixes in our queue waiting to be released.
I'm planing to act as release manager and cut a new release based on the
current trunk in round about 2 weeks from now.
I'd like to include preflight and xmpbox into this release, but there are
some questions we should discuss before.
1.)
How should we provide the "new" parts? As jar similar to the other parts, but
what about the validate-application? Should we move it to the pdfbox-app or
should we create a preflight-app which could be used as standalone jar?
2.)
Eric remove the padaf packname from preflight. What about xmpbox, should we
remove the padaf packagename as well?
3.)
preflight/xmpbox and pdfbox are using different formatting rules (tab vs.
spaces, brace positions etc). Should we just use the checkstyle rules or
should we first discuss on how to format our codebase based on the existing
checkstyle rules?
WDYT?
BR
Andreas Lehmkühler
Re: New PDFBox 1.8.0 release ?
Posted by Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Hi,
Am 03.03.2013 21:12, schrieb Guillaume Bailleul:
> Hi,
>
> This is my opinion for the 3 questions :
>
> 1) I think xmpbox and preflight should be provided as jars because
> they can be used standalone. Moving the application validation could
> be a good idea but it will increase the number of dependency of
> pdfbox-app... So ... I do not know which choice is the best.
I'll take care of this and create an JIRA ticket with a suggestion.
> 2) I think we should remove the "padaf" from the package name. The
> result will something like other part of the application :
> org.apache.jempbox
> org.apache.pdfbox
> org.apache.pdfbox
I already did it, see PDFBOX-1528 :-)
> 3) The new modules must be modified to use the same coding rules. I
> can work on that point. I looked for these rules when we proposed
> padaf to pdfbox but did not find anything. Is there something defined
> somewhere ?
The is a checkstyle config file in the pdfbox-reactor package. Is this
good enough or do you need more input?
> KR,
>
> Guillaume
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I guess everybody agrees on the fact that a new PDFBox release is overdue!
>>
>> There are a lot of improvements and bugfixes in our queue waiting to be
>> released.
>> I'm planing to act as release manager and cut a new release based on the
>> current trunk in round about 2 weeks from now.
>>
>> I'd like to include preflight and xmpbox into this release, but there are
>> some questions we should discuss before.
>>
>> 1.)
>> How should we provide the "new" parts? As jar similar to the other parts,
>> but
>> what about the validate-application? Should we move it to the pdfbox-app or
>> should we create a preflight-app which could be used as standalone jar?
>>
>> 2.)
>> Eric remove the padaf packname from preflight. What about xmpbox, should we
>> remove the padaf packagename as well?
>>
>> 3.)
>> preflight/xmpbox and pdfbox are using different formatting rules (tab vs.
>> spaces, brace positions etc). Should we just use the checkstyle rules or
>> should we first discuss on how to format our codebase based on the existing
>> checkstyle rules?
>>
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>>
>> BR
>> Andreas Lehmkühler
BR
Andreas Lehmkühler
Re: New PDFBox 1.8.0 release ?
Posted by Guillaume Bailleul <gb...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
This is my opinion for the 3 questions :
1) I think xmpbox and preflight should be provided as jars because
they can be used standalone. Moving the application validation could
be a good idea but it will increase the number of dependency of
pdfbox-app... So ... I do not know which choice is the best.
2) I think we should remove the "padaf" from the package name. The
result will something like other part of the application :
org.apache.jempbox
org.apache.pdfbox
org.apache.pdfbox
3) The new modules must be modified to use the same coding rules. I
can work on that point. I looked for these rules when we proposed
padaf to pdfbox but did not find anything. Is there something defined
somewhere ?
KR,
Guillaume
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I guess everybody agrees on the fact that a new PDFBox release is overdue!
>
> There are a lot of improvements and bugfixes in our queue waiting to be
> released.
> I'm planing to act as release manager and cut a new release based on the
> current trunk in round about 2 weeks from now.
>
> I'd like to include preflight and xmpbox into this release, but there are
> some questions we should discuss before.
>
> 1.)
> How should we provide the "new" parts? As jar similar to the other parts,
> but
> what about the validate-application? Should we move it to the pdfbox-app or
> should we create a preflight-app which could be used as standalone jar?
>
> 2.)
> Eric remove the padaf packname from preflight. What about xmpbox, should we
> remove the padaf packagename as well?
>
> 3.)
> preflight/xmpbox and pdfbox are using different formatting rules (tab vs.
> spaces, brace positions etc). Should we just use the checkstyle rules or
> should we first discuss on how to format our codebase based on the existing
> checkstyle rules?
>
>
> WDYT?
>
>
> BR
> Andreas Lehmkühler
Re: New PDFBox 1.8.0 release ?
Posted by Timo Boehme <ti...@ontochem.com>.
Hi,
Am 14.03.2013 20:29, schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler:
> Am 03.03.2013 18:33, schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler:
>> I guess everybody agrees on the fact that a new PDFBox release is
>> overdue!
>>
>> There are a lot of improvements and bugfixes in our queue waiting to
>> be released.
>> I'm planing to act as release manager and cut a new release based on the
>> current trunk in round about 2 weeks from now.
> I'm planning to cut the release next week on monday or tuesday if nobody
> objects.
No objections from my side.
Best regards,
Timo
--
Timo Boehme
OntoChem GmbH
H.-Damerow-Str. 4
06120 Halle/Saale
T: +49 345 4780474
F: +49 345 4780471
timo.boehme@ontochem.com
_____________________________________________________________________
OntoChem GmbH
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Lutz Weber
Sitz: Halle / Saale
Registergericht: Stendal
Registernummer: HRB 215461
_____________________________________________________________________
Re: New PDFBox 1.8.0 release ?
Posted by Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Hi,
Am 03.03.2013 18:33, schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler:
> Hi,
>
> I guess everybody agrees on the fact that a new PDFBox release is overdue!
>
> There are a lot of improvements and bugfixes in our queue waiting to be released.
> I'm planing to act as release manager and cut a new release based on the
> current trunk in round about 2 weeks from now.
I'm planning to cut the release next week on monday or tuesday if nobody
objects.
BR
Andreas Lehmkühler
Re: New PDFBox 1.8.0 release ?
Posted by Timo Boehme <ti...@ontochem.com>.
Hi,
Am 03.03.2013 18:33, schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler:
> I guess everybody agrees on the fact that a new PDFBox release is overdue!
>
> There are a lot of improvements and bugfixes in our queue waiting to be
> released.
> I'm planing to act as release manager and cut a new release based on the
> current trunk in round about 2 weeks from now.
Thanks, this is greatly appreciated.
> I'd like to include preflight and xmpbox into this release, but there are
> some questions we should discuss before.
>
> 1.)
> How should we provide the "new" parts? As jar similar to the other
> parts, but
> what about the validate-application? Should we move it to the pdfbox-app or
> should we create a preflight-app which could be used as standalone jar?
I would vote for releasing it as a separate jar because the usage
scenarios are different.
> 2.)
> Eric remove the padaf packname from preflight. What about xmpbox, should we
> remove the padaf packagename as well?
Yes, I would think so.
> 3.)
> preflight/xmpbox and pdfbox are using different formatting rules (tab vs.
> spaces, brace positions etc). Should we just use the checkstyle rules or
> should we first discuss on how to format our codebase based on the existing
> checkstyle rules?
I wouldn't mind using the existing checkstyle rules.
Best regards,
Timo
--
Timo Boehme
OntoChem GmbH
H.-Damerow-Str. 4
06120 Halle/Saale
T: +49 345 4780474
F: +49 345 4780471
timo.boehme@ontochem.com
_____________________________________________________________________
OntoChem GmbH
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Lutz Weber
Sitz: Halle / Saale
Registergericht: Stendal
Registernummer: HRB 215461
_____________________________________________________________________