RE: 0.20.5 release

[ali farahani <al...@ebs.ir>]

Dear Thomas Sporbeck

It's good to see someone else is using FOP for big reports. I also using
tables for inventory lists near to 600 pages and my user do not accept
to use filters. This FOP is killing my user business and if I could not
find a solution to it, we would trough away the FOP for good, for ever.
Then it would be a shame on FOP open source developers since I would go
and buy none open, commercial product.

I would really appreciate if you inform me of your ideas.

Regards

Ali Farahani

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Sporbeck [mailto:th.sporbeck@exso.de] 
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:41 PM
To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: RE: 0.20.5 release

I would agree to Ricardo. We're using tables for inventory lists
containing about 500 pages. The memory situation in that reports is
really critical and we cannot force the users to set filters.
On the other hand: to us it doesn't matter if this enhancement comes
with 0.20.5 or with a later version (0.20.5a ?), which has of course to
be decided by the developers and will possibly delay refactoring.

Thomas Sporbeck


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org

Re: 0.20.5 release

["J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>]

ali farahani wrote:
> It's good to see someone else is using FOP for big reports.

I always wonder what poor souls have to sift through this
huge amound of paper... ;-)

> I also using
> tables for inventory lists near to 600 pages and my user do not accept
> to use filters. This FOP is killing my user business and if I could not
> find a solution to it, we would trough away the FOP for good, for ever.
> Then it would be a shame on FOP open source developers since I would go
> and buy none open, commercial product.

Well, unfortunately my company has tightened my time budget
which means I have to do *all* work on FOP in my spare time.
However, if you have a critical bug to fix and can come up
with a bunch of dollars, I'll gladly take a few days off in
order to fix it (for *everyone*).

In the case of the excessive memory consumption cased by
tables I think I have found a fix which wont break everything
else. It will certainly require some amount of testing, which
means another release candidate and which is therefore quite
unpopular with our release manager.

J.Pietschmann


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org

RE: 0.20.5 release

[Cyril Rognon <cr...@objectiva.fr>]

Hi Fopers,

I can understand your requirements, but I would like to know what memory 
limit you are looking for and what are the filters you two are talking about.

As for me, I have been using FOP for BIG reports (fromm 100 to 2000 pages) 
with big tables (like you, more than 500 pages long tables).

I have used some iText Features to deal with forward reference (see the 
list archive for more details) and this has been giving me a nice solution.

I can produce a 1500 pages doc on a simple machine with 256Mo in a few 
minutes (yes, it swaps) and we use 1 or 2 Go Ram servers for huge documents.

Anyway, we all would welcome some new solution to this problem, but surely 
you reckon there has been loads of workarounb in this list ?

Can you be more specific about the performance threshold you are looking for ?

Regards

Cyril

At 09:02 08/07/2003 +0430, you wrote:
>Dear Thomas Sporbeck
>
>It's good to see someone else is using FOP for big reports. I also using
>tables for inventory lists near to 600 pages and my user do not accept
>to use filters. This FOP is killing my user business and if I could not
>find a solution to it, we would trough away the FOP for good, for ever.
>Then it would be a shame on FOP open source developers since I would go
>and buy none open, commercial product.
>
>I would really appreciate if you inform me of your ideas.
>
>Regards
>
>Ali Farahani
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Sporbeck [mailto:th.sporbeck@exso.de]
>Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:41 PM
>To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
>Subject: RE: 0.20.5 release
>
>I would agree to Ricardo. We're using tables for inventory lists
>containing about 500 pages. The memory situation in that reports is
>really critical and we cannot force the users to set filters.
>On the other hand: to us it doesn't matter if this enhancement comes
>with 0.20.5 or with a later version (0.20.5a ?), which has of course to
>be decided by the developers and will possibly delay refactoring.
>
>Thomas Sporbeck


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org