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 Mark Brucks <mb...@earthlink.net> on 2005/01/17 05:18:23 UTC
another nose for the grindstone
I'd like to join the fop development group. I've been an xsl/fop user
for the last year or so (generating PDF), but several new projects I'm
proposing have a need for a robust and complete awt renderer, and I'd
like to devote some time to ensuring this happens. I have a little bit
of time in the near term to commit to the project, and I hope much more
time starting in the April time frame. I'd like to use the next 2
months to come up to speed, then dive in to serious work when more time
is available.
I need some advice. I've learned enough about xsl and fop to get my job
done, but there are lots of holes in my knowledge base. I'd like to
spend a little bit of time carefully reading the XSL spec. Should I
read the XSL V1.1 working draft (in anticipation of things to come), or
should I stick with the V1.0 recommendation (which I assume is what the
new version of fop will implement).
Do the development and design documents that are available on-line
relate to the root/trunk/redesign version, or do they still describe the
maintenance branch?
Is there a development schedule or a prioritized list of features to be
implemented?
Is anybody else actively working on the awt rendered for the next release?
Since this is my first foray into open-source development, any and all
advice is welcome.
Thanks - Mark Brucks
Re: another nose for the grindstone
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 22.02.2005 12:43:56 Renaud Richardet wrote:
> Mark, just let me know when you'll start to work on it.
> Clay, sorry for not making clear that i needed the maintenance code
> for reference.
> Jeremias, thanks for the pointer
>
> i'm not sure about the following. please correct me if i'm wrong:
>
> the (currently named) AWTRenderer allows 3 different kinds of output
> 1) GUI-application
or only a single window or just a part of a window.
> 2) a java Image (containing all areas represented as Graphics2D's)
Not sure what you mean. Oleg Tkachenko wrote an extension of the AWT
Renderer that paints the area tree to a single bitmap (per page) through
the Graphics2D interface. This is something I like to see integrated
directly into the render.java2d interface.
> 3) a printed document through AWTPrintRenderer, or is it
Right. That's where the Printable interface comes into play.
> the commandline options to start the differents output are
Don't make a 1:1 association between the capabilities of the command
line and all the possible use cases of the Java2D renderer.
> 1) -awt
That displays the example preview window in the render.awt.viewer
package.
> 2) ????
With the bitmap output support added, this will be -jpg and -tiff and
-png etc.
> 3) -print
That kicks the AWTPrintRenderer.
> i started to investigate the rendering system. the AbstractRenderer is
> well designed and already implementing a lot of stuff, so that should
> go allright for the AWTRenderer.
Yes, try to use as much as possible from the AbstractRenderer to avoid
duplicate code. If you see possibilities for consolidating functionality
between the PDF and Java2D renderer, then please tell us.
If I don't get any objections by tomorrow morning (CET) I'm going to
rename the AWTRenderer to Java2DRenderer so you can work on the real
thing.
Another thing: If you plan to regularly start to contribute to FOP or
simply to be on the safe side because you're not just going to
contribute a small bugfix only, it might be good if you sent a signed
ICLA (Individual Contributor License Agreement) to the secretary of the
ASF. See here for a text and PDF version of the ICLA:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf
That's not the same as commit rights or committership, but we might get
to that in time. :-)
Jeremias Maerki
Re: another nose for the grindstone
Posted by Renaud Richardet <re...@gmail.com>.
Mark, just let me know when you'll start to work on it.
Clay, sorry for not making clear that i needed the maintenance code
for reference.
Jeremias, thanks for the pointer
i'm not sure about the following. please correct me if i'm wrong:
the (currently named) AWTRenderer allows 3 different kinds of output
1) GUI-application
2) a java Image (containing all areas represented as Graphics2D's)
3) a printed document through AWTPrintRenderer, or is it
the commandline options to start the differents output are
1) -awt
2) ????
3) -print
i started to investigate the rendering system. the AbstractRenderer is
well designed and already implementing a lot of stuff, so that should
go allright for the AWTRenderer.
thanks, renaud
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:48:28 +0100, Jeremias Maerki
<de...@greenmail.ch> wrote:
> Clay,
>
> he knows that. I told him to use the maintenance branch code as a
> reference for bringing back the AWT Renderer in CVS HEAD. Renaud and I
> met last Friday at lots.ch.
>
> So, Renaud, please use the code found under the "fop-0_20_2-maintain"
> branch for reference. And happy hacking!
>
> On 22.02.2005 05:38:58 The Web Maestro wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Renaud Richardet wrote:
> > > bonjour fop-devs
> >
> > Salut! Bienvenue!
> >
> > > i would like to work on the awt renderer. Mark (or someone else) , are
> > > you working on it?
> > > i checked out the code from FOP 0.20.5. is it the latest maintenance
> > > version?
> > >
> > > thanks, renaud
> >
> > Actually, the fop-0.20.5 code is merely for reference. All FOP
> > development has moved away from the fop-0.20-5 branch
> > (fop-0_20-maintain OR 'maintenance' branch) in favor of the re-design
> > branch (HEAD). This was done because the 'maintenance' branch had
> > significant problems that were not easily resolvable. The re-design
> > branch occurred because of problems in implementing the XSL0FO 1.0
> > spec--specifically with the 'keeps' I believe.
> >
> > In any case, if you wish to contribute to FOP development, please check
> > out the HEAD branch. You may look to fop-0.20.5 for reference, but any
> > work you do on that branch will probably not be integrated into FOP
> > 1.0.
>
> Jeremias Maerki
>
>
--
renaud.richardet (at) gmail (dot) com
+41 78 675 9501
www.oslutions.com
Re: another nose for the grindstone
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
Clay,
he knows that. I told him to use the maintenance branch code as a
reference for bringing back the AWT Renderer in CVS HEAD. Renaud and I
met last Friday at lots.ch.
So, Renaud, please use the code found under the "fop-0_20_2-maintain"
branch for reference. And happy hacking!
On 22.02.2005 05:38:58 The Web Maestro wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Renaud Richardet wrote:
> > bonjour fop-devs
>
> Salut! Bienvenue!
>
> > i would like to work on the awt renderer. Mark (or someone else) , are
> > you working on it?
> > i checked out the code from FOP 0.20.5. is it the latest maintenance
> > version?
> >
> > thanks, renaud
>
> Actually, the fop-0.20.5 code is merely for reference. All FOP
> development has moved away from the fop-0.20-5 branch
> (fop-0_20-maintain OR 'maintenance' branch) in favor of the re-design
> branch (HEAD). This was done because the 'maintenance' branch had
> significant problems that were not easily resolvable. The re-design
> branch occurred because of problems in implementing the XSL0FO 1.0
> spec--specifically with the 'keeps' I believe.
>
> In any case, if you wish to contribute to FOP development, please check
> out the HEAD branch. You may look to fop-0.20.5 for reference, but any
> work you do on that branch will probably not be integrated into FOP
> 1.0.
Jeremias Maerki
Re: another nose for the grindstone
Posted by Mark Brucks <mb...@earthlink.net>.
Renaud et al
I've had less time to devote to it than I thought, but I am working my
way carefully through the spec (and trying to keep up with the posts to
fop-dev). The bottom line is that I'm not actively working on the code
yet - I hope to be by April. So, if you've got time now, you should
pick what you want to work on, and I'll fill in where needed.
Mark Brucks
Renaud Richardet wrote:
>bonjour fop-devs
>
>i would like to work on the awt renderer. Mark (or someone else) , are
>you working on it?
>i checked out the code from FOP 0.20.5. is it the latest maintenance version?
>
>thanks, renaud
>
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:54:43 +0100, Jeremias Maerki
><de...@greenmail.ch> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Mark
>>
>>We'd love to have you with us.
>>
>>On 17.01.2005 05:18:23 Mark Brucks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd like to join the fop development group. I've been an xsl/fop user
>>>for the last year or so (generating PDF), but several new projects I'm
>>>proposing have a need for a robust and complete awt renderer, and I'd
>>>like to devote some time to ensuring this happens. I have a little bit
>>>of time in the near term to commit to the project, and I hope much more
>>>time starting in the April time frame. I'd like to use the next 2
>>>months to come up to speed, then dive in to serious work when more time
>>>is available.
>>>
>>>
>>The AWT renderer is currently missing in CVS HEAD. It would be great if
>>someone took up that task. To build that renderer you can look at the
>>code from the maintenance branch (or FOP 0.20.5) for reference. Our
>>reference renderer in CVS HEAD is the PDF renderer (like before).
>>
>>Personally, I'd rather call it Java2D renderer, not AWT renderer,
>>because Java2D is essentially the name of the API you code against. AWT
>>is, as the name says, a windowing toolkit, not primarily a graphics API.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I need some advice. I've learned enough about xsl and fop to get my job
>>>done, but there are lots of holes in my knowledge base. I'd like to
>>>spend a little bit of time carefully reading the XSL spec. Should I
>>>read the XSL V1.1 working draft (in anticipation of things to come), or
>>>should I stick with the V1.0 recommendation (which I assume is what the
>>>new version of fop will implement).
>>>
>>>
>>The recommendation is still the main reference. Glen Mazza already
>>started investigating the 1.1 WD (ex. bookmarks) and it might be helpful
>>sometimes to consult the 1.1 WD because it seems to be somewhat more
>>verbose. It's good to prepare for 1.1 but as long as it's in WD phase
>>the focus should remain on the 1.0 Rec for the time being.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Do the development and design documents that are available on-line
>>>relate to the root/trunk/redesign version, or do they still describe the
>>>maintenance branch?
>>>
>>>
>>They refer to CVS HEAD. If they are not up-to-date, they should be
>>updated.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Is there a development schedule or a prioritized list of features to be
>>>implemented?
>>>
>>>
>>A development schedule is always difficult in an all-volunteer project.
>>I think it's pretty realistic now to target an initial release in late
>>summer 2005.
>>
>>I'm currently working off this list: http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FOPWorkEstimates
>>
>>But this list isn't binding. You're free to choose what you like to work
>>on. If you want to build the Java2D renderer, that's great. If you want
>>to help with the layout engine, even better. If you start a task simply
>>notify us what you're working on so we don't have duplicate effort.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Is anybody else actively working on the awt rendered for the next release?
>>>
>>>
>>No, not at the moment.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Since this is my first foray into open-source development, any and all
>>>advice is welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>The advice is simple: Choose something to work on, notify this list (if
>>it's something bigger), start hacking and in the end send patches via
>>Bugzilla. Of course, this is a bit simplistic but essentially this is
>>all what you need to know for now. :-)
>>
>>If you have questions simply ask. We're happy to help you getting
>>started.
>>
>>
>>Jeremias Maerki
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: another nose for the grindstone
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 21, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Renaud Richardet wrote:
> bonjour fop-devs
Salut! Bienvenue!
> i would like to work on the awt renderer. Mark (or someone else) , are
> you working on it?
> i checked out the code from FOP 0.20.5. is it the latest maintenance
> version?
>
> thanks, renaud
Actually, the fop-0.20.5 code is merely for reference. All FOP
development has moved away from the fop-0.20-5 branch
(fop-0_20-maintain OR 'maintenance' branch) in favor of the re-design
branch (HEAD). This was done because the 'maintenance' branch had
significant problems that were not easily resolvable. The re-design
branch occurred because of problems in implementing the XSL0FO 1.0
spec--specifically with the 'keeps' I believe.
In any case, if you wish to contribute to FOP development, please check
out the HEAD branch. You may look to fop-0.20.5 for reference, but any
work you do on that branch will probably not be integrated into FOP
1.0.
Cheers!
Web Maestro Clay
--
<th...@gmail.com> - <http://homepage.mac.com/webmaestro/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
Re: another nose for the grindstone
Posted by Renaud Richardet <re...@gmail.com>.
bonjour fop-devs
i would like to work on the awt renderer. Mark (or someone else) , are
you working on it?
i checked out the code from FOP 0.20.5. is it the latest maintenance version?
thanks, renaud
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:54:43 +0100, Jeremias Maerki
<de...@greenmail.ch> wrote:
> Hi Mark
>
> We'd love to have you with us.
>
> On 17.01.2005 05:18:23 Mark Brucks wrote:
> > I'd like to join the fop development group. I've been an xsl/fop user
> > for the last year or so (generating PDF), but several new projects I'm
> > proposing have a need for a robust and complete awt renderer, and I'd
> > like to devote some time to ensuring this happens. I have a little bit
> > of time in the near term to commit to the project, and I hope much more
> > time starting in the April time frame. I'd like to use the next 2
> > months to come up to speed, then dive in to serious work when more time
> > is available.
>
> The AWT renderer is currently missing in CVS HEAD. It would be great if
> someone took up that task. To build that renderer you can look at the
> code from the maintenance branch (or FOP 0.20.5) for reference. Our
> reference renderer in CVS HEAD is the PDF renderer (like before).
>
> Personally, I'd rather call it Java2D renderer, not AWT renderer,
> because Java2D is essentially the name of the API you code against. AWT
> is, as the name says, a windowing toolkit, not primarily a graphics API.
>
> > I need some advice. I've learned enough about xsl and fop to get my job
> > done, but there are lots of holes in my knowledge base. I'd like to
> > spend a little bit of time carefully reading the XSL spec. Should I
> > read the XSL V1.1 working draft (in anticipation of things to come), or
> > should I stick with the V1.0 recommendation (which I assume is what the
> > new version of fop will implement).
>
> The recommendation is still the main reference. Glen Mazza already
> started investigating the 1.1 WD (ex. bookmarks) and it might be helpful
> sometimes to consult the 1.1 WD because it seems to be somewhat more
> verbose. It's good to prepare for 1.1 but as long as it's in WD phase
> the focus should remain on the 1.0 Rec for the time being.
>
> > Do the development and design documents that are available on-line
> > relate to the root/trunk/redesign version, or do they still describe the
> > maintenance branch?
>
> They refer to CVS HEAD. If they are not up-to-date, they should be
> updated.
>
> > Is there a development schedule or a prioritized list of features to be
> > implemented?
>
> A development schedule is always difficult in an all-volunteer project.
> I think it's pretty realistic now to target an initial release in late
> summer 2005.
>
> I'm currently working off this list: http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FOPWorkEstimates
>
> But this list isn't binding. You're free to choose what you like to work
> on. If you want to build the Java2D renderer, that's great. If you want
> to help with the layout engine, even better. If you start a task simply
> notify us what you're working on so we don't have duplicate effort.
>
> > Is anybody else actively working on the awt rendered for the next release?
>
> No, not at the moment.
>
> > Since this is my first foray into open-source development, any and all
> > advice is welcome.
>
> The advice is simple: Choose something to work on, notify this list (if
> it's something bigger), start hacking and in the end send patches via
> Bugzilla. Of course, this is a bit simplistic but essentially this is
> all what you need to know for now. :-)
>
> If you have questions simply ask. We're happy to help you getting
> started.
>
>
> Jeremias Maerki
>
Re: another nose for the grindstone
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
Hi Mark
We'd love to have you with us.
On 17.01.2005 05:18:23 Mark Brucks wrote:
> I'd like to join the fop development group. I've been an xsl/fop user
> for the last year or so (generating PDF), but several new projects I'm
> proposing have a need for a robust and complete awt renderer, and I'd
> like to devote some time to ensuring this happens. I have a little bit
> of time in the near term to commit to the project, and I hope much more
> time starting in the April time frame. I'd like to use the next 2
> months to come up to speed, then dive in to serious work when more time
> is available.
The AWT renderer is currently missing in CVS HEAD. It would be great if
someone took up that task. To build that renderer you can look at the
code from the maintenance branch (or FOP 0.20.5) for reference. Our
reference renderer in CVS HEAD is the PDF renderer (like before).
Personally, I'd rather call it Java2D renderer, not AWT renderer,
because Java2D is essentially the name of the API you code against. AWT
is, as the name says, a windowing toolkit, not primarily a graphics API.
> I need some advice. I've learned enough about xsl and fop to get my job
> done, but there are lots of holes in my knowledge base. I'd like to
> spend a little bit of time carefully reading the XSL spec. Should I
> read the XSL V1.1 working draft (in anticipation of things to come), or
> should I stick with the V1.0 recommendation (which I assume is what the
> new version of fop will implement).
The recommendation is still the main reference. Glen Mazza already
started investigating the 1.1 WD (ex. bookmarks) and it might be helpful
sometimes to consult the 1.1 WD because it seems to be somewhat more
verbose. It's good to prepare for 1.1 but as long as it's in WD phase
the focus should remain on the 1.0 Rec for the time being.
> Do the development and design documents that are available on-line
> relate to the root/trunk/redesign version, or do they still describe the
> maintenance branch?
They refer to CVS HEAD. If they are not up-to-date, they should be
updated.
> Is there a development schedule or a prioritized list of features to be
> implemented?
A development schedule is always difficult in an all-volunteer project.
I think it's pretty realistic now to target an initial release in late
summer 2005.
I'm currently working off this list: http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FOPWorkEstimates
But this list isn't binding. You're free to choose what you like to work
on. If you want to build the Java2D renderer, that's great. If you want
to help with the layout engine, even better. If you start a task simply
notify us what you're working on so we don't have duplicate effort.
> Is anybody else actively working on the awt rendered for the next release?
No, not at the moment.
> Since this is my first foray into open-source development, any and all
> advice is welcome.
The advice is simple: Choose something to work on, notify this list (if
it's something bigger), start hacking and in the end send patches via
Bugzilla. Of course, this is a bit simplistic but essentially this is
all what you need to know for now. :-)
If you have questions simply ask. We're happy to help you getting
started.
Jeremias Maerki
Re: marketing Defoe
Posted by "Peter B. West" <li...@pbw.id.au>.
Glen Mazza wrote:
> (Don't let Peter rattle you, Jeremias--he's just
> jealous that I've found more XSL spec bugs than him.
> ;)
You have a lead I am unlikely to overhaul.
> Our delays are mostly related to advanced issues
> concerning layout, and the type of parser used doesn't
> have much effect on this issue.
Time will tell.
> So I don't share
> Peter's conviction that FOP is in need of a major
> design overhaul--or that Defoe's layout is as complete
> as it needs to be either, for the matter.
There is no Defoe layout ... yet...
> Both sides
> have a lot of work to do.
...so yes, there is a lot of work to be done on Defoe.
> Glen
Peter
PS Thanks to Clay for the feedback.
Re: marketing Defoe
Posted by Glen Mazza <gr...@yahoo.com>.
(Don't let Peter rattle you, Jeremias--he's just
jealous that I've found more XSL spec bugs than him.
;)
Our delays are mostly related to advanced issues
concerning layout, and the type of parser used doesn't
have much effect on this issue. So I don't share
Peter's conviction that FOP is in need of a major
design overhaul--or that Defoe's layout is as complete
as it needs to be either, for the matter. Both sides
have a lot of work to do.
Glen
--- Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> this is not about the question whether I disagree
> with the assessment.
> You might be right, you might be wrong. I can't
> tell, yet, because I'm
> still working my way into the new layout engine. My
> reaction was
> triggered by the way you said these things, not by
> any technical
> statement. But as I said, I may be overreacting and
> I may not have
> filtered everything through all the "is-written" and
> "is-in-foreign-language" filters.
>
Re: marketing Defoe
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
Peter,
this is not about the question whether I disagree with the assessment.
You might be right, you might be wrong. I can't tell, yet, because I'm
still working my way into the new layout engine. My reaction was
triggered by the way you said these things, not by any technical
statement. But as I said, I may be overreacting and I may not have
filtered everything through all the "is-written" and
"is-in-foreign-language" filters.
On 17.01.2005 12:07:47 Peter B. West wrote:
> Jeremias,
>
> Do you disagree with the assessment? Clearly people might, but I didn't
> say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of FOP. If it
> is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of play? Finn
> has already talked about a radically different approach in order to
> solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present you with a
> swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future. I just hope
> he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot. One of its underlying
> features will be what is effectively a stream parsing mechanism. It's
> acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there being no other
> design contenders, will be particularly galling for me, in light of the
> the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it, as I still do.
>
> I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues.
>
> Peter
>
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you
> > did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with
> > FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of
> > making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...
> >
Jeremias Maerki
Re: marketing Defoe
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
Peter,
FWIW, I was shocked by the tone of your statement as well. Not so much
by any misleading or such. Rather, it was more in the way that I'm
shocked by the manner that, in the US companies can discuss differences
with other products in their advertisements.
Had you also 'advertised' FOray in the same way you promoted Defoe, it
might've taken a bit of the tone down (I don't know--you didn't mention
FOray so I don't *know* how it would've come off).
In any case, as I suspect is true for with the rest of the FOP team, I
am grateful to your continued contributions to the FOP project, and I
hope your contribution will continue.
Web Maestro Clay
On Jan 17, 2005, at 3:07 AM, Peter B. West wrote:
> Jeremias,
>
> Do you disagree with the assessment? Clearly people might, but I
> didn't say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of
> FOP. If it is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of
> play? Finn has already talked about a radically different approach in
> order to solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present
> you with a swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future.
> I just hope he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot. One of
> its underlying features will be what is effectively a stream parsing
> mechanism. It's acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there
> being no other design contenders, will be particularly galling for me,
> in light of the the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it,
> as I still do.
>
> I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues.
>
> Peter
>
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>> Peter,
>> it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you
>> did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with
>> FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of
>> making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...
>
>
Web Maestro Clay
--
<th...@gmail.com> - <http://homepage.mac.com/webmaestro/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
Re: marketing Defoe
Posted by "Peter B. West" <li...@pbw.id.au>.
Jeremias,
Do you disagree with the assessment? Clearly people might, but I didn't
say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of FOP. If it
is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of play? Finn
has already talked about a radically different approach in order to
solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present you with a
swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future. I just hope
he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot. One of its underlying
features will be what is effectively a stream parsing mechanism. It's
acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there being no other
design contenders, will be particularly galling for me, in light of the
the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it, as I still do.
I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues.
Peter
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Peter,
>
> it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you
> did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with
> FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of
> making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...
>
Re: marketing Defoe (was: another nose for the grindstone)
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
Peter,
it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you
did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with
FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of
making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...
On 17.01.2005 06:01:27 Peter B. West wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Project Defoe <http://defoe.sourceforge.net/>, formerly Fop alt-design,
> is focussed on a Java 2D renderer, robust and complete. By complete I
> mean, in particular, able to correctly handle last-page, keeps, table
> auto-layout and large files. Don't make the mistake of thinking that,
> because FOP has been around for a long time, it is only the place to be
> for open source XSL-FO development. Rather, ask why, if it has been
> around for such a long time, these problems haven't been solved. Don't
> make the mistake of thinking that all software problems are solved by
> simply applying more resources.
>
> Having said that, let me add that the project seems to have found its
> shepherd, in the form of Finn Bock. Many of the long-standing
> innovations of alt-design in the property handling have at last been
> introduced by Finn, who has the happy knack of being able to completely
> rewrite large chunks of FOP by applying a wide-ranging but complete set
> of changes. He may well solve FOP's remaining critical problems in the
> same way.
>
> The point is, that FOP needs a major design overhaul. I'm doing that at
> Defoe, and Finn is doing it, piecemeal, at FOP. His focus though is not
> on Java 2D, and getting a "complete and robust" implementation of the 2D
> renderer will depend on Finn's new design. If you want to know more
> about where FOP is headed, ask Finn.
>
> Defoe is Java 5.0 based. If that doesn't work for you, don't bother
> with Defoe. Otherwise, if you are interested in avenues for your XSL-FO
> development efforts, I am happy to talk to you.
Jeremias Maerki
Re: another nose for the grindstone
Posted by "Peter B. West" <li...@pbw.id.au>.
Mark,
Project Defoe <http://defoe.sourceforge.net/>, formerly Fop alt-design,
is focussed on a Java 2D renderer, robust and complete. By complete I
mean, in particular, able to correctly handle last-page, keeps, table
auto-layout and large files. Don't make the mistake of thinking that,
because FOP has been around for a long time, it is only the place to be
for open source XSL-FO development. Rather, ask why, if it has been
around for such a long time, these problems haven't been solved. Don't
make the mistake of thinking that all software problems are solved by
simply applying more resources.
Having said that, let me add that the project seems to have found its
shepherd, in the form of Finn Bock. Many of the long-standing
innovations of alt-design in the property handling have at last been
introduced by Finn, who has the happy knack of being able to completely
rewrite large chunks of FOP by applying a wide-ranging but complete set
of changes. He may well solve FOP's remaining critical problems in the
same way.
The point is, that FOP needs a major design overhaul. I'm doing that at
Defoe, and Finn is doing it, piecemeal, at FOP. His focus though is not
on Java 2D, and getting a "complete and robust" implementation of the 2D
renderer will depend on Finn's new design. If you want to know more
about where FOP is headed, ask Finn.
Defoe is Java 5.0 based. If that doesn't work for you, don't bother
with Defoe. Otherwise, if you are interested in avenues for your XSL-FO
development efforts, I am happy to talk to you.
Peter
Mark Brucks wrote:
> I'd like to join the fop development group. I've been an xsl/fop user
> for the last year or so (generating PDF), but several new projects I'm
> proposing have a need for a robust and complete awt renderer, and I'd
> like to devote some time to ensuring this happens. I have a little bit
> of time in the near term to commit to the project, and I hope much more
> time starting in the April time frame. I'd like to use the next 2
> months to come up to speed, then dive in to serious work when more time
> is available.
>
> I need some advice. I've learned enough about xsl and fop to get my job
> done, but there are lots of holes in my knowledge base. I'd like to
> spend a little bit of time carefully reading the XSL spec. Should I
> read the XSL V1.1 working draft (in anticipation of things to come), or
> should I stick with the V1.0 recommendation (which I assume is what the
> new version of fop will implement).
>
> Do the development and design documents that are available on-line
> relate to the root/trunk/redesign version, or do they still describe the
> maintenance branch?
>
> Is there a development schedule or a prioritized list of features to be
> implemented?
>
> Is anybody else actively working on the awt rendered for the next release?
>
> Since this is my first foray into open-source development, any and all
> advice is welcome.
>
> Thanks - Mark Brucks
>