XEP vs. fop

[Ulrich Mayring <ul...@denic.de>]

Hello,

after trying out XEP and fop I make the following observations:

- XEP has many more features with the exception of SVG
- fop is faster, better integrated into cocoon (which I use a lot) and
easier to install

Is this overly broad? I don't mean to start a flamewar, just consider it
an outsider's impression of both tools. I have no particular axe to
grind and the company I work for has been known to buy expensive stuff
as well as to use Open Source tools.

Perhaps the comparison is a bit unfair, because we have yet to see a
release version of XEP and fop changes every day as well.

Ulrich

-- 
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung

Re: XEP vs. fop

[Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, you wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> after trying out XEP and fop I make the following observations:
> 
> - XEP has many more features with the exception of SVG
> - fop is faster, better integrated into cocoon (which I use a lot) and
> easier to install
> 
> Is this overly broad? I don't mean to start a flamewar, just consider it
> an outsider's impression of both tools. I have no particular axe to
> grind and the company I work for has been known to buy expensive stuff
> as well as to use Open Source tools.
> 
> Perhaps the comparison is a bit unfair, because we have yet to see a
> release version of XEP and fop changes every day as well.
> 
> Ulrich
> 
This sounds about right. I would hesitate to tout FOP as being _the_ fastest
implementation, but it's encouraging to hear that your tests suggest that. Bear
in mind that we have, on FOP, done _no_ performance enhancements. I think we
have a really nice architecture and design, for which all credit goes to James
Tauber. I have consistently found that the code and the design are a delight to
work with.

I'd peg XEP as being the most feature-rich (again, with the exception of SVG).
I think this gap is narrowing.

We (FOP) are working with the other implementations in order to help define and
deliver a better user picture of what is available.

 Arved Sandstrom

  -- 
Senior Developer
e-plicity.com (www.e-plicity.com)
Halifax, Nova Scotia
"B2B Wireless in Canada's Ocean Playground"

RE: XEP vs. fop

[Rikard Herlitz <Ri...@excosoft.se>]

We are taking a big step and replacing our own formatter with XSLT/XSL-FO.
I must say that to be able to compete with the old one it's the number of
features that counts for me. I have gotten XEP to do a marvelous work on
a pretty complex document, and it does it alot faster than our own formatter.

I would like to try using FOP as well but I would like a document on what
the differences are between the FOP and XEP implementation of the WD, so
that I can convert my xsl-document to use with FOP...

I must also say that I am deeply impressed with the power of XSLT in conjunction
with XSL-FO! In two days I made an xsl-doc that formatted a document better
and more complex than our own formatter could...

/Rikard

-----Original Message-----
From: ulim [mailto:ulim]On Behalf Of Ulrich Mayring
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 10:18 AM
To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: XEP vs. fop


Hello,

after trying out XEP and fop I make the following observations:

- XEP has many more features with the exception of SVG
- fop is faster, better integrated into cocoon (which I use a lot) and
easier to install

Is this overly broad? I don't mean to start a flamewar, just consider it
an outsider's impression of both tools. I have no particular axe to
grind and the company I work for has been known to buy expensive stuff
as well as to use Open Source tools.

Perhaps the comparison is a bit unfair, because we have yet to see a
release version of XEP and fop changes every day as well.

Ulrich

-- 
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung