Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[ch...@chi.ca]

I've noticed that the code on the fop-0_20_2-maintain branch uses
noticibly less memory than the 0.20.5 release.  (we're basically rendering
a large table described in xsl:fo)

Thus, I just wanted to know if some sort of 0.20.6 release will be
upcoming in the future





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

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>]

On Jan 7, 2004, at 12:07 PM, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> It works for me for generating PDF for quite some time. I get NPE when
> reloading a FO source in the AWT appilcation, but this maz have other
> reasons, I didn't try to track it down.

As long as I can remember I got NPE when clicking the [Reload] button 
in AWT while running FOP (w fop-0.20.5 & fop-0.20.4). I just took it as 
"fact" that this was something we're not supposed to do.

Web Maestro Clay

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

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

Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Okay, but you said yourself that the adjustments you made to tables has 
> probably broken some other things, so we would need to go through a RC, 
> and bug fix cycle.

It works for me for generating PDF for quite some time. I get NPE when
reloading a FO source in the AWT appilcation, but this maz have other
reasons, I didn't try to track it down.
As yet untested is how the patch works with rowspan cells, especially
if a rowspan cell is broken across pages. But then, there are issues
with rowspan cells broken across pages without the patches.
Yes, a RC stage would be necessary. But I think if there are problems
which are not in 0.20.5, and it's not absolutely obvious how to fix them,
we just tell people to continue to use 0.20.5.

J.Pietschmann

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail>]

Clay Leeds wrote:

> Thanks for the respectful response. I'm aware that HEAD release is 
> adversely affected by MAINTENANCE work (hence the "I don't want to start 
> a ware here, but..." :-)), however, I posted this for a few of reasons: 
> 1) fop-dev team might discuss this in light of the possibility of 
> another release and/or RC; 2) aside from the table/memory issues, I 
> wonder what other changes would be included; 3) what PATCHes to 
> fop-0_20_2-maintain were close to completion prior to code-freeze?

AFAICT there are no unfinished works lurking for maintenance branch. 
Progress on FOP development has been slow for well over 12 months now, 
and if anyone started work on new features for maintenance and left the 
changes on their hard disk they stayed quiet about it.

> Then again, even the prospect of reading and/or responding to this 
> thread takes the good fop-dev committing team away from HEAD 
> development, so this'll be my last post on the subject unless further 
> discussion is warranted.

Discussion is always a good thing and doesnt distract that much time 
from possible HEAD development. I didnt mean to imply your suggestion 
wasnt valid, its certainly worth discussing, but my personal opinion is 
to focus on HEAD development so we can do a release before the end of 2004.

Chris

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>]

On Jan 7, 2004, at 7:46 AM, Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Clay Leeds wrote:
>> I don't want to start a war here, but if (& that's a big "if") we're 
>> going to go through the hassle of doing an RC, does it make sense to 
>> "insert" any "new" functionality into FOP, like TIF output? I 
>> understand Oleg Tkachenko's work for TIF is complete (or nearly 
>> complete), but (like many PATCHes) was excluded due to code-freeze. 
>> My company just implemented some systems which use TIF output, and we 
>> have to go through hoops (XML/XSL-FO=>PostScript and then from 
>> Postscript=>TIF via GhostScript). It works but is clunky. Since it 
>> works, this isn't a make-or-break for me, but is more of a "would be 
>> nice"...
>
> I understand the desire to add new features like the Tif generator 
> into the maintenance code. However, doing so would mean effort is 
> distracted away from HEAD development. The sooner we can do a release 
> from HEAD then the sooner FOP gets out of the twilight zone.
>
> Chris

Thanks for the respectful response. I'm aware that HEAD release is 
adversely affected by MAINTENANCE work (hence the "I don't want to 
start a ware here, but..." :-)), however, I posted this for a few of 
reasons: 1) fop-dev team might discuss this in light of the possibility 
of another release and/or RC; 2) aside from the table/memory issues, I 
wonder what other changes would be included; 3) what PATCHes to 
fop-0_20_2-maintain were close to completion prior to code-freeze?

Since I'm starting to get up to speed w CVS, I guess I can go and look 
myself for 2 & 3. As for #3, I guess part of that would hinge on 
whether the PATCH developer currently has the time to devote to 
adjusting the code for 0.20.51 (or whatever it'll be called). In the 
case of TIF output, I believe the developer wrote it for 0.20.3.

Then again, even the prospect of reading and/or responding to this 
thread takes the good fop-dev committing team away from HEAD 
development, so this'll be my last post on the subject unless further 
discussion is warranted.

Web Maestro Clay
-- 
Clay Leeds - cleeds@medata.com
Web Developer - Medata, Inc. - <http://www.medata.com/>
PGP Public Key: <https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc>

RE: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

["Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:bowditch_chris@hotmail.telenet-ops.be]
>
<snip />
>
> I understand the desire to add new features like the Tif generator into
> the maintenance code. However, doing so would mean effort is distracted
> away from HEAD development. The sooner we can do a release from HEAD
> then the sooner FOP gets out of the twilight zone.
>

I tend to agree with Chris here.
Maybe the current CVS code for maintenance could be just built and added to
the distributions download page. Then we can put a bit of explanation on the
web page for those interested ... but I'd keep the fuss rather minimal for
the moment (--but maybe nothing but my lazy alter ego speaking here ;) )
There may be quite some work left on HEAD, but in the last few weeks, I'm
getting the impression that things are actually moving forward (cfr. Finn's
and Simon's numerous patch proposals to Layout and Properties) Apart from a
committer deciding to leave (or, at least, take a step back from) FOP, we
have had little or no drawbacks in dev lately, so my guess would be that all
is looking quite good (for now)

If a vote were being called? Hmmm... tough one... I guess one thing we
mustn't forget is that --how long exactly has it been since there was talk
about 'the redesigned FOP'? If judged from that side, to release another
'minor update' would be a mistake IMHO. OTOH I have currently too little
info (and too much enthousiasm) to make a clear, educated guess about the
time it will take to get the current HEAD ready for average use...

I would refrain: 0

> Clay Leeds wrote:

> Then again, even the prospect of reading and/or responding to this
> thread takes the good fop-dev committing team away from HEAD
> development, so this'll be my last post on the subject unless further
> discussion is warranted.

Maestro,

Jus' remember: all recipients who do not want to read, have the choice to
ignore your message upon receipt. Good ideas, fella, good ideas are *always*
welcome :)


Cheers,

Andreas

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail>]

Clay Leeds wrote:

> I don't want to start a war here, but if (& that's a big "if") we're 
> going to go through the hassle of doing an RC, does it make sense to 
> "insert" any "new" functionality into FOP, like TIF output? I understand 
> Oleg Tkachenko's work for TIF is complete (or nearly complete), but 
> (like many PATCHes) was excluded due to code-freeze. My company just 
> implemented some systems which use TIF output, and we have to go through 
> hoops (XML/XSL-FO=>PostScript and then from Postscript=>TIF via 
> GhostScript). It works but is clunky. Since it works, this isn't a 
> make-or-break for me, but is more of a "would be nice"...

I understand the desire to add new features like the Tif generator into 
the maintenance code. However, doing so would mean effort is distracted 
away from HEAD development. The sooner we can do a release from HEAD 
then the sooner FOP gets out of the twilight zone.

Chris

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>]

I don't want to start a war here, but if (& that's a big "if") we're 
going to go through the hassle of doing an RC, does it make sense to 
"insert" any "new" functionality into FOP, like TIF output? I 
understand Oleg Tkachenko's work for TIF is complete (or nearly 
complete), but (like many PATCHes) was excluded due to code-freeze. My 
company just implemented some systems which use TIF output, and we have 
to go through hoops (XML/XSL-FO=>PostScript and then from 
Postscript=>TIF via GhostScript). It works but is clunky. Since it 
works, this isn't a make-or-break for me, but is more of a "would be 
nice"...

I don't know what else there is out there in the way of "completed" 
PATCHes for highly desirable benefits that are ready (or almost ready) 
for prime time. There could certainly be other items we're missing due 
to the self-imposed code freeze.

For me the issue is not so much what other things can we shoe-horn into 
FOP. It's more of an issue with "what features can be added to FOP to 
make it even more desirable and get more users (and developers) on 
board".

Web Maestro Clay

On Jan 7, 2004, at 12:42 AM, Chris Bowditch wrote:
> J.Pietschmann wrote:
>
>> Well, we could release the current CVS as 0.20.5.1. The table memory
>> fix is probably important to many users. THere is a slo a minor fix
>> concerning leader expansion there.
>
> Okay, but you said yourself that the adjustments you made to tables 
> has probably broken some other things, so we would need to go through 
> a RC, and bug fix cycle.
>
> Chris
>

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail>]

J.Pietschmann wrote:

> Well, we could release the current CVS as 0.20.5.1. The table memory
> fix is probably important to many users. THere is a slo a minor fix
> concerning leader expansion there.
> 

Okay, but you said yourself that the adjustments you made to tables has 
probably broken some other things, so we would need to go through a RC, 
and bug fix cycle.

Chris

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

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

Chris Bowditch wrote:
>> Thus, I just wanted to know if some sort of 0.20.6 release will be
>> upcoming in the future
>>
> 
> No, no further releases are planned from the maintenance branch, and all 
> development is focused on CVS Head.

Well, we could release the current CVS as 0.20.5.1. The table memory
fix is probably important to many users. THere is a slo a minor fix
concerning leader expansion there.

J.Pietschmann

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>]

Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
> Why having a maintainance branch, if you do not intend to release 
> anything from it?
> 
> This is an issue since I cannot use unreleased CVS code even if it 
> performs much better.

The MAINTENANCE Branch was frozen to allow FOP developers to focus on 
the re-design effort (the future of FOP). There are no planned NEW 
releases from the MAINTENANCE branch. At present, it exists for historic 
purposes only, although PATCHs to the MAINTENANCE branch (offering 
slight improvements to performance and a couple of mainly minor bugs) 
still exist in bugzilla[1].

Web Maestro Clay

[1] Bugzilla - where PATCHs may be found (watch word wrap!)
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&email1=&emailtype1=substring&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=substring&emailreporter2=1&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&product=Fop&short_desc=&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&keywords=&keywords_type=anywords&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&order=bugs.component

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

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>]

Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:

> Chris Bowditch wrote:
> 
>> No, no further releases are planned from the maintenance branch, and 
>> all development is focused on CVS Head.
> 
> 
> I am browsing through archives to find pointers for performance 
> improvement, and found the above comment a bit confusing.
> 
> Why having a maintainance branch, if you do not intend to release 
> anything from it?

Well there have been releases from it in the past, since the code was forked 
for redesign. The trouble with the maintainance branch is the design restricts 
  the addition of significant new features, i.e. keep-* properties. It is 
possible to make minor refinements, but the development team prefers to work 
on a new design that supports more XSL-FO features than is possible in the 
maintainance code.

> This is an issue since I cannot use unreleased CVS code even if it 
> performs much better.

Why not? Even released code goes through no official test cycle, the 
development team relies on user feedback to find bugs.

Chris



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

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen <no...@c.dk>]

Chris Bowditch wrote:

> No, no further releases are planned from the maintenance branch, and 
> all development is focused on CVS Head.

I am browsing through archives to find pointers for performance 
improvement, and found the above comment a bit confusing.

Why having a maintainance branch, if you do not intend to release 
anything from it?

This is an issue since I cannot use unreleased CVS code even if it 
performs much better.

-- 
  Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen      "...plus...Tubular Bells!"


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

Re: Is there going to be another release of the 0.20 branch?

[Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail>]

chi3@chi.ca wrote:

> I've noticed that the code on the fop-0_20_2-maintain branch uses
> noticibly less memory than the 0.20.5 release.  (we're basically rendering
> a large table described in xsl:fo)

Thats right, the way tables uses memory has been improved in CVS.

> 
> Thus, I just wanted to know if some sort of 0.20.6 release will be
> upcoming in the future
> 

No, no further releases are planned from the maintenance branch, and all 
development is focused on CVS Head.

Chris



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