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 Simon Steiner <si...@gmail.com> on 2014/06/18 15:20:59 UTC
PDFBox
Hi,
As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from
AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different
fonts.
This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does
Java 5 still need to be supported?
Thanks
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
+1
Cheers!
Clay
--
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 5:48 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on, Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade emerge, i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1 on going to 1.6.
>
> However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated. FOP is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of different older operating systems including some mainframe systems, where upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It can be very difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems and therefore make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java on such systems. So until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling reason to go to 7 or 8, I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0 release is a good plan.
>
> BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>> On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>>
>> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different fonts.
>>
>> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does Java 5 still need to be supported?
>>
>> Thanks
>
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
+1
Cheers!
Clay
--
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 5:48 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on, Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade emerge, i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1 on going to 1.6.
>
> However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated. FOP is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of different older operating systems including some mainframe systems, where upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It can be very difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems and therefore make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java on such systems. So until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling reason to go to 7 or 8, I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0 release is a good plan.
>
> BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>> On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>>
>> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different fonts.
>>
>> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does Java 5 still need to be supported?
>>
>> Thanks
>
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
My +1
2014-06-20 14:48 GMT+02:00 Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>:
> Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that
> time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on,
> Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade emerge,
> i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1 on going to
> 1.6.
>
> However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated. FOP
> is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of
> different older operating systems including some mainframe systems, where
> upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It can be very
> difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems and therefore
> make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java on such systems. So
> until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling reason to go to 7 or 8,
> I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0 release is a good plan.
>
> BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an
> impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella
>
> On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote:
>>
>> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>>
>> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from
>> AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different
>> fonts.
>>
>> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does
>> Java 5 still need to be supported?
--
pascal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Simon,
Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that
time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on,
Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade
emerge, i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1
on going to 1.6.
However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated.
FOP is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of
different older operating systems including some mainframe systems,
where upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It
can be very difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems
and therefore make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java
on such systems. So until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling
reason to go to 7 or 8, I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0
release is a good plan.
BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an
impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella
Thanks,
Chris
On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>
> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched
> from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support
> for different fonts.
>
> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5,
> does Java 5 still need to be supported?
>
> Thanks
>
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hehe, you found it...
I didn't search on general list, my bad.
Good catch!
2014-06-18 17:45 GMT+02:00 Robert Meyer <rm...@hotmail.co.uk>:
> Hi,
>
> I managed to find Chris' original comment:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-general/201310.mbox/%3CBLU0-SMTP152F66B6DFCFD8695DF00EEFB1D0@phx.gbl%3E
--
pascal
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
+1
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Robert Meyer <rm...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I managed to find Chris' original comment:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-general/201310.mbox/%3CBLU0-SMTP152F66B6DFCFD8695DF00EEFB1D0@phx.gbl%3E
>
> I think as you say having two versions makes sense. I would be in favour
> of that as I think FOP should be able to look to the future. Who knows,
> maybe we should just skip 1.6 and head straight to 1.8 ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert Meyer
>
> > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:17:17 +0200
> > Subject: Re: PDFBox
> > From: psancho.asf@gmail.com
> > To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
> >
> > IIRC, Chris arged that it was hard to upgrade JVM on certain Unix
> environments.
> > I didn't found the discussion, but probably was on this list, 2 or 3
> > monthes ago.
> >
> > That said, you bring some new arguments that have to be taken into
> account.
> > IMHO, that means that we should provide 2 FOP versions:
> >
> > - fop 1.x, keeping 1.5 Java support,
> > - new fop 2.x, with 1.6 (or earlier?) Java support
> >
> > Note that today we provide 2 FOP versions (current -- 1.1, and previous
> -- 1.0)
> > I think there is no reason to keep both current and previous version
> > materials on the website. But this will make sense if we have to
> > provide wider range platform support. (thought a little out of topic
> > here...)
> >
> > 2014-06-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Simon Steiner <si...@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched
> from
> > > AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for
> different
> > > fonts.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5,
> does
> > > Java 5 still need to be supported?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > pascal
>
RE: PDFBox
Posted by Robert Meyer <rm...@hotmail.co.uk>.
Hi,
I managed to find Chris' original comment:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-general/201310.mbox/%3CBLU0-SMTP152F66B6DFCFD8695DF00EEFB1D0@phx.gbl%3E
I think as you say having two versions makes sense. I would be in favour of that as I think FOP should be able to look to the future. Who knows, maybe we should just skip 1.6 and head straight to 1.8 ;-)
Regards,
Robert Meyer
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:17:17 +0200
> Subject: Re: PDFBox
> From: psancho.asf@gmail.com
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
> IIRC, Chris arged that it was hard to upgrade JVM on certain Unix environments.
> I didn't found the discussion, but probably was on this list, 2 or 3
> monthes ago.
>
> That said, you bring some new arguments that have to be taken into account.
> IMHO, that means that we should provide 2 FOP versions:
>
> - fop 1.x, keeping 1.5 Java support,
> - new fop 2.x, with 1.6 (or earlier?) Java support
>
> Note that today we provide 2 FOP versions (current -- 1.1, and previous -- 1.0)
> I think there is no reason to keep both current and previous version
> materials on the website. But this will make sense if we have to
> provide wider range platform support. (thought a little out of topic
> here...)
>
> 2014-06-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Simon Steiner <si...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
> >
> >
> >
> > I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from
> > AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different
> > fonts.
> >
> >
> >
> > This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does
> > Java 5 still need to be supported?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> pascal
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Pascal Sancho <ps...@gmail.com>.
IIRC, Chris arged that it was hard to upgrade JVM on certain Unix environments.
I didn't found the discussion, but probably was on this list, 2 or 3
monthes ago.
That said, you bring some new arguments that have to be taken into account.
IMHO, that means that we should provide 2 FOP versions:
- fop 1.x, keeping 1.5 Java support,
- new fop 2.x, with 1.6 (or earlier?) Java support
Note that today we provide 2 FOP versions (current -- 1.1, and previous -- 1.0)
I think there is no reason to keep both current and previous version
materials on the website. But this will make sense if we have to
provide wider range platform support. (thought a little out of topic
here...)
2014-06-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Simon Steiner <si...@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>
>
>
> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from
> AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different
> fonts.
>
>
>
> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does
> Java 5 still need to be supported?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
--
pascal
Re: PDFBox
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Simon,
Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that
time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on,
Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade
emerge, i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1
on going to 1.6.
However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated.
FOP is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of
different older operating systems including some mainframe systems,
where upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It
can be very difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems
and therefore make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java
on such systems. So until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling
reason to go to 7 or 8, I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0
release is a good plan.
BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an
impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella
Thanks,
Chris
On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
>
> I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched
> from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support
> for different fonts.
>
> This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5,
> does Java 5 still need to be supported?
>
> Thanks
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org