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 "Peter B. West" <pb...@tpg.com.au> on 2004/05/19 00:18:57 UTC
Incremental vs rewrite
The thing that immediately strikes me about Arnd's development is that
it seems to blow away the theory that incremental modification of an
existing code base is always the better way to go. IIUC, Arnd wrote a
formatter from scratch (except for some fo the font handling) in two years.
Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Simon Pepping wrote:
> That was basic work. The basis of the property subsystem is good,
> and shorthands all work, I think. But it is another question which
> properties are really implemented w.r.t. their effect on the layout. I
> do not think we have a good overview. See Glen's experimental
> approach: Transform a set of documents and see what you think is not
> right, which is the best we seem to be able to do right now.
Thanks for the confirmation Simon. Transforming documents and seeing what
doesnt work is the approach I have been taking. Currently trying to see why
markers dont work properly.
Chris
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.nl>.
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 04:34:14PM +0100, Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Clay Leeds wrote:
>
> >Sounds like a good exercise for someone like me, to transform those
> >shorthand items into 'longhand'...
>
> My understanding is that thanks to the property work earlier this year by
> Glen, Finn and Simon, that properties are 95% there, including shorthands.
> Admittely I didnt follow their work very closely, so could be wrong about
> this. Im sure Glen will interject and correct me on this if I'm wrong.
That was basic work. The basis of the property subsystem is good,
and shorthands all work, I think. But it is another question which
properties are really implemented w.r.t. their effect on the layout. I
do not think we have a good overview. See Glen's experimental
approach: Transform a set of documents and see what you think is not
right, which is the best we seem to be able to do right now.
Regards, Simon
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Clay Leeds wrote:
>> Sounds like a good exercise for someone like me, to transform those shorthand items into 'longhand'...
>
> My understanding is that thanks to the property work earlier this year
> by Glen, Finn and Simon, that properties are 95% there, including
> shorthands. Admittely I didnt follow their work very closely, so could
> be wrong about this. Im sure Glen will interject and correct me on this
> if I'm wrong.
>
> <snip/>
>
> Chris
Thanks for the update. I must've missed that part. I'll wait a bit for
clarification (although it would probably be a good exercise for my XSLT
skills...)
Web Maestro Clay
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Peter B. West wrote:
>> My understanding is that thanks to the property work earlier this year
>> by Glen, Finn and Simon, that properties are 95% there, including
>> shorthands. Admittely I didnt follow their work very closely, so could
>> be wrong about this. Im sure Glen will interject and correct me on
>> this if I'm wrong.
>
>
> I do get burned when the work on properties is mentioned without any
> acknowledgment of the influence that alt-design has had on HEAD's
> properties development.
Sorry Peter,
Chris
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@tpg.com.au>.
Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Clay Leeds wrote:
>
>>> Be warned that the RenderX testsuite files require a relatively high
>>> degree of spec compliance. Shorthands are used everywhere, all table
>>> examples require auto-layout, and so on. I confess that I learned a
>>> few more things about FO when testing with these files...
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds like a good exercise for someone like me, to transform those
>> shorthand items into 'longhand'...
>
>
> My understanding is that thanks to the property work earlier this year
> by Glen, Finn and Simon, that properties are 95% there, including
> shorthands. Admittely I didnt follow their work very closely, so could
> be wrong about this. Im sure Glen will interject and correct me on this
> if I'm wrong.
I do get burned when the work on properties is mentioned without any
acknowledgment of the influence that alt-design has had on HEAD's
properties development.
Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Clay Leeds wrote:
>> Be warned that the RenderX testsuite files require a relatively high
>> degree of spec compliance. Shorthands are used everywhere, all table
>> examples require auto-layout, and so on. I confess that I learned a
>> few more things about FO when testing with these files...
>
>
> Sounds like a good exercise for someone like me, to transform those
> shorthand items into 'longhand'...
My understanding is that thanks to the property work earlier this year by
Glen, Finn and Simon, that properties are 95% there, including shorthands.
Admittely I didnt follow their work very closely, so could be wrong about
this. Im sure Glen will interject and correct me on this if I'm wrong.
<snip/>
Chris
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@tpg.com.au>.
Clay Leeds wrote:
> Peter B. West wrote:
>> Shorthands have been fully handled in alt-design's properties for
>> about 18 months now.
>
>
> Glad to hear it! One of these days, I'll have to build alt.design from
> source so I can see all of your hard work. I notice that it uses a
> non-ant system of building, so I may get back to you on how steps to
> proceed with the build (unless the steps are outlined and/or linked from
> the site :-)).
It now uses Ant, so building is pretty straightforward. That's
something else that will need updating in the docs.
>> Btw, I'm now in the dark about the way the web pages are being
>> maintained. It's been a while since I was involved in the discussions
>> about Forrest and FOP, primarily around using Javascript in pages.
>> I'll read the docs docs again.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
> No problem. I think this is something *I* can handle... ;-) I recently
> spent some time figuring out Forrest. I haven't completed all of my
> travels, however, as I still get errors when I do a forrest run.
> However, I do understand the format itself pretty well, so if you can
> give me 'before' and after (or a diff would be fine, I can commit the
> necessary changes--committership has its privileges... don't worry, I
> won't touch JAVA code 'til I've spent some time hashing things through!)
>
> Otherwise, you could always just edit the XML source files the way you
> like. That should work just as well. Once the edits have been committed,
> running forrestbot should do the rest (of course we'll have to replace
> breadcrumb.js--D'oh!--as I think it still gets clobbered when forrestbot
> runs).
I'll send you diffs and refer any questions I have to you. Thanks Clay.
Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@tpg.com.au>.
Clay Leeds wrote:
> Peter B. West wrote:
>>
>> Shorthands have been fully handled in alt-design's properties for
>> about 18 months now.
Not true. How quickly we forget! The nasty ones are, notably font and
border, but I just (re-)discovered that xml:lang wasn't, and I have
implemented it.
Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
On May 20, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Glen Mazza wrote:
> --- Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com> wrote:
>
> You can commit now? Congratulations--I guess that
> means you got the CLA finished!
Yeah... Thanks! My company took about a month to sign & FAX the
necessary Corporate CLA, and I couldn't FAX mine in 'til it was in.
>> Otherwise, you could always just edit the XML source
>> files the way you
>> like. That should work just as well. Once the edits
>> have been committed,
>> running forrestbot should do the rest (of course
>> we'll have to replace
>> breadcrumb.js--D'oh!--as I think it still gets
>> clobbered when forrestbot
>> runs).
>>
>
> Yes--just replace with the earlier version:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=108180706211726&w=2
>
> Glen
Yup! that's what I figured. Then again, since I sent it... BTW, I just
updated the issue:
http://issues.cocoondev.org/jira/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?id=10234
Web Maestro Clay
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Glen Mazza <gr...@yahoo.com>.
--- Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com> wrote:
>
> However, I do understand the format itself pretty
> well, so if you can
> give me 'before' and after (or a diff would be fine,
> I can commit the
> necessary changes--committership has its
> privileges... don't worry, I
> won't touch JAVA code 'til I've spent some time
> hashing things through!)
>
You can commit now? Congratulations--I guess that
means you got the CLA finished!
> Otherwise, you could always just edit the XML source
> files the way you
> like. That should work just as well. Once the edits
> have been committed,
> running forrestbot should do the rest (of course
> we'll have to replace
> breadcrumb.js--D'oh!--as I think it still gets
> clobbered when forrestbot
> runs).
>
Yes--just replace with the earlier version:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=108180706211726&w=2
Glen
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
Peter B. West wrote:
> Clay Leeds wrote:
>>> Be warned that the RenderX testsuite files require a relatively high
>>> degree of spec compliance. Shorthands are used everywhere, all table
>>> examples require auto-layout, and so on. I confess that I learned a
>>> few more things about FO when testing with these files...
>>
>> Sounds like a good exercise for someone like me, to transform those
>> shorthand items into 'longhand'...
>
> Shorthands have been fully handled in alt-design's properties for about
> 18 months now.
Glad to hear it! One of these days, I'll have to build alt.design from
source so I can see all of your hard work. I notice that it uses a
non-ant system of building, so I may get back to you on how steps to
proceed with the build (unless the steps are outlined and/or linked from
the site :-)).
>>> That's true. So let's all get back to work. 8-)
>>>
>>> From Peter's mail:
>>>
>>>> The thing that immediately strikes me about Arnd's development is
>>>> that it seems to blow away the theory that incremental modification
>>>> of an existing code base is always the better way to go. IIUC, Arnd
>>>> wrote a formatter from scratch (except for some fo the font
>>>> handling) in two years.
>>>
>>> I don't think what I did proves your point. Even though it worked
>>> for me this time, it was a high risk (ok, since I was always
>>> prepared to treat this a fun project, no risk). It was really a
>>> gamble, one I wouldn't have done under other circumstances - for
>>> example not if producing an FO formatter had been our business
>>> then. I suppose when you look around, you will find much, much
>>> more failed "rewrite" projects than failed "incremental"
>>> projects. In any case, I really don't think you can compare a
>>> one-person effort to that of a distributed group. Also, I believe
>>> this is rather a generic software-development question. If you
>>> think you do see the light at the end of the tunnel for the FOP
>>> rewrite then by all means go for it.
>>
>> That's interesting. My view on alt.design has pretty much always been
>> one talented guy working on the other side of the world, and coding
>> FOP the way he always wanted to. No distractions or lengthy discussion
>> (albeit frequently contributing insightful posts to FOP-Dev &-user). I
>> haven't been keeping tabs on the status of alt-design lately so I
>> don't 'know' where it is at present (I'll check the status page
>> directly).
>
> That won't do you much good, as I haven't updates the docs for some time
> now. I'm currently working on layout, using Java's facilities
> (including 1.3 and 1.4) for the layout engine. I'll update the pages as
> I make progress on this.
Heh! I noticed that... I was actually going to ask if you had any
updates I could apply, but then...
> Btw, I'm now in the dark about the way the web pages are being
> maintained. It's been a while since I was involved in the discussions
> about Forrest and FOP, primarily around using Javascript in pages. I'll
> read the docs docs again.
>
> Peter
No problem. I think this is something *I* can handle... ;-) I recently
spent some time figuring out Forrest. I haven't completed all of my
travels, however, as I still get errors when I do a forrest run.
However, I do understand the format itself pretty well, so if you can
give me 'before' and after (or a diff would be fine, I can commit the
necessary changes--committership has its privileges... don't worry, I
won't touch JAVA code 'til I've spent some time hashing things through!)
Otherwise, you could always just edit the XML source files the way you
like. That should work just as well. Once the edits have been committed,
running forrestbot should do the rest (of course we'll have to replace
breadcrumb.js--D'oh!--as I think it still gets clobbered when forrestbot
runs).
Web Maestro Clay
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@tpg.com.au>.
Clay Leeds wrote:
> arnd.beissner@cappelino.de wrote:
>
>> Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com> schrieb am 19.05.2004 01:03:19:
>>
>>> It would be interesting to compare some RenderX example output
>>> between the two^H^H^H three (ArndFO, fop-0.20.5, fop-1.0Dev)... I
>>> suspect there may be other significant differences as well, with
>>> performance, heap,
>>
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> Be warned that the RenderX testsuite files require a relatively high
>> degree of spec compliance. Shorthands are used everywhere, all table
>> examples require auto-layout, and so on. I confess that I learned a
>> few more things about FO when testing with these files...
>
>
> Sounds like a good exercise for someone like me, to transform those
> shorthand items into 'longhand'...
Shorthands have been fully handled in alt-design's properties for about
18 months now.
>
>>> Then again, the more I think about it, the more it seems like Peter's
>>> train-of-thought RE: FOP development destabilization. 'We' could be
>>> working on FOP development, but instead we're talking about Arnd's
>>> (and Victor's) development efforts (I have every reason to believe it
>>> is everything he says it is), and discussing how the grass may be
>>> greener on the other side of the fence.
>>
>>
>> That's true. So let's all get back to work. 8-)
>>
>> From Peter's mail:
>>
>>> The thing that immediately strikes me about Arnd's development is
>>> that it seems to blow away the theory that incremental modification
>>> of an existing code base is always the better way to go. IIUC, Arnd
>>> wrote a formatter from scratch (except for some fo the font handling)
>>> in two years.
>>
>>
>> I don't think what I did proves your point. Even though it worked for
>> me this time, it was a high risk (ok, since I was always prepared to
>> treat this a fun project, no risk). It was really a gamble, one I
>> wouldn't
>> have done under other circumstances - for example not if producing an FO
>> formatter had been our business then. I suppose when you look around, you
>> will find much, much more failed "rewrite" projects than failed
>> "incremental" projects.
>> In any case, I really don't think you can compare a one-person effort to
>> that of a distributed group. Also, I believe this is rather a generic
>> software-development question. If you think you do see the light at the
>> end of the tunnel for the FOP rewrite then by all means go for it.
>
>
> That's interesting. My view on alt.design has pretty much always been
> one talented guy working on the other side of the world, and coding FOP
> the way he always wanted to. No distractions or lengthy discussion
> (albeit frequently contributing insightful posts to FOP-Dev &-user). I
> haven't been keeping tabs on the status of alt-design lately so I don't
> 'know' where it is at present (I'll check the status page directly).
That won't do you much good, as I haven't updates the docs for some time
now. I'm currently working on layout, using Java's facilities
(including 1.3 and 1.4) for the layout engine. I'll update the pages as
I make progress on this.
Btw, I'm now in the dark about the way the web pages are being
maintained. It's been a while since I was involved in the discussions
about Forrest and FOP, primarily around using Javascript in pages. I'll
read the docs docs again.
Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
arnd.beissner@cappelino.de wrote:
> Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com> schrieb am 19.05.2004 01:03:19:
>>It would be interesting to compare some RenderX example output between
>>the two^H^H^H three (ArndFO, fop-0.20.5, fop-1.0Dev)... I suspect there
>>may be other significant differences as well, with performance, heap,
>
> etc.
>
> Be warned that the RenderX testsuite files require a relatively high
> degree of spec compliance. Shorthands are used everywhere, all table
> examples require auto-layout, and so on. I confess that I learned a
> few more things about FO when testing with these files...
Sounds like a good exercise for someone like me, to transform those
shorthand items into 'longhand'...
>>Then again, the more I think about it, the more it seems like Peter's
>>train-of-thought RE: FOP development destabilization. 'We' could be
>>working on FOP development, but instead we're talking about Arnd's (and
>>Victor's) development efforts (I have every reason to believe it is
>>everything he says it is), and discussing how the grass may be greener
>>on the other side of the fence.
>
> That's true. So let's all get back to work. 8-)
>
> From Peter's mail:
>
>>The thing that immediately strikes me about Arnd's development is that
>>it seems to blow away the theory that incremental modification of an
>>existing code base is always the better way to go. IIUC, Arnd wrote a
>>formatter from scratch (except for some fo the font handling) in two
>>years.
>
> I don't think what I did proves your point. Even though it worked for
> me this time, it was a high risk (ok, since I was always prepared to
> treat this a fun project, no risk). It was really a gamble, one I wouldn't
> have done under other circumstances - for example not if producing an FO
> formatter had been our business then. I suppose when you look around, you
> will find much, much more failed "rewrite" projects than failed
> "incremental" projects.
>
> In any case, I really don't think you can compare a one-person effort to
> that of a distributed group. Also, I believe this is rather a generic
> software-development question. If you think you do see the light at the
> end of the tunnel for the FOP rewrite then by all means go for it.
That's interesting. My view on alt.design has pretty much always been
one talented guy working on the other side of the world, and coding FOP
the way he always wanted to. No distractions or lengthy discussion
(albeit frequently contributing insightful posts to FOP-Dev &-user). I
haven't been keeping tabs on the status of alt-design lately so I don't
'know' where it is at present (I'll check the status page directly).
Web Maestro Clay
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by ar...@cappelino.de.
Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com> schrieb am 19.05.2004 01:03:19:
> It would be interesting to compare some RenderX example output between
> the two^H^H^H three (ArndFO, fop-0.20.5, fop-1.0Dev)... I suspect there
> may be other significant differences as well, with performance, heap,
etc.
Be warned that the RenderX testsuite files require a relatively high
degree
of spec compliance. Shorthands are used everywhere, all table examples
require auto-layout, and so on. I confess that I learned a few more things
about FO when testing with these files...
> Then again, the more I think about it, the more it seems like Peter's
> train-of-thought RE: FOP development destabilization. 'We' could be
> working on FOP development, but instead we're talking about Arnd's (and
> Victor's) development efforts (I have every reason to believe it is
> everything he says it is), and discussing how the grass may be greener
> on the other side of the fence.
That's true. So let's all get back to work. 8-)
>From Peter's mail:
> The thing that immediately strikes me about Arnd's development is that
> it seems to blow away the theory that incremental modification of an
> existing code base is always the better way to go. IIUC, Arnd wrote a
> formatter from scratch (except for some fo the font handling) in two
years.
I don't think what I did proves your point. Even though it worked for
me this time, it was a high risk (ok, since I was always prepared to
treat this a fun project, no risk). It was really a gamble, one I wouldn't
have done under other circumstances - for example not if producing an FO
formatter had been our business then. I suppose when you look around, you
will find much, much more failed "rewrite" projects than failed
"incremental"
projects.
In any case, I really don't think you can compare a one-person effort to
that of a distributed group. Also, I believe this is rather a generic
software-development question. If you think you do see the light at the
end of the tunnel for the FOP rewrite then by all means go for it.
There's one thing I want to mention at this point:
The market (make that "community" if you prefer) for FO formatting is
still very small. Growing, but still very small. The more different
solutions
that we see, the better for the market or community (yes, only to a
certain extent of course). I am sure, even within the open source
community,
many users would be grateful not to be "locked" into using FOP, but to
have
an alternative.
My 2 cents, but now finally back to work.
Arnd
--
Arnd Beißner
Cappelino Informationstechnologie GmbH
Re: Incremental vs rewrite
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
Peter B. West wrote:
> The thing that immediately strikes me about Arnd's development is that
> it seems to blow away the theory that incremental modification of an
> existing code base is always the better way to go. IIUC, Arnd wrote a
> formatter from scratch (except for some fo the font handling) in two years.
>
> Peter
It would be interesting to compare some RenderX example output between
the two^H^H^H three (ArndFO, fop-0.20.5, fop-1.0Dev)... I suspect there
may be other significant differences as well, with performance, heap, etc.
Then again, the more I think about it, the more it seems like Peter's
train-of-thought RE: FOP development destabilization. 'We' could be
working on FOP development, but instead we're talking about Arnd's (and
Victor's) development efforts (I have every reason to believe it is
everything he says it is), and discussing how the grass may be greener
on the other side of the fence.
Web Maestro Clay