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 Keiron Liddle <ke...@aftexsw.com> on 2002/03/14 09:59:50 UTC
development status
(as a guess I would say you haven't beed subscribed long enough :)
There was a notice of this a number of months ago. Admittedly we have it
the other way around. Maintenance releases are made from a branch. So the
main branch is where the active development is happening.
So where are we:
I am going to great lengths to describe how it all works so others will
have the knowledge to help out.
Many others are helping with ideas and requirements.
Not much code is getting done because people are busy and the issues are
complex (many of the side issues are being dealt with)
The maintenance branch is being updated for bugs etc.
I am hoping people will get to a point where they feel ready to jump in.
So what needs to be done:
Finish the implementation of the line layout
do the page layout
then do all fo's
handle other issues
then hopefully we will be ready for a developers release (version number
yet to be decided)
On 2002.03.14 08:49 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Although I'm subscribed to this mailing list for quite some time now, I
> didn't really understand the status of the works that are going on to get
> to
> FOP2 or whatever you are going to call it.
> AFAIK, changing codebase requires a notice of this, a branch in CVS (no
> vote
> is necessary), and a final VOTE if the codebase is to switch.
> This is how Tomcat, Xalan, Xerces and many other projects did it, and how
> the priject guidelines advise. (http://xml.apache.org/source.html)
>
> What's the current status?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
From: "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >Don't get me wrong, maybe I don't understand something, but still I'm
very
> >puzzled.
> >
> Nicola,
>
> Your criticism here distresses me somewhat. How is anyone without
> commit access able to branch the code? I have been active on this list
> for twelve months or more, so your not knowing of my effort reflects the
> fact that you have recently joined.
Sorry, I didn't know.
I still think that it's strange that the redesign effort is done outside of
FOP CVS, but now it's clear to me that you didn't have another possibility.
It's some month's I've been on this list, and my longer experience on other
lists made me wonder about the current status of FOP. I thank you for taking
your time to explain.
Since I would like to give a hand if possible, could you please give me
insight on how you've redesigned the framework, or some reference to
available material?
It would be great.
Thank you :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>From: "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>
>
>>There is very active development on FO Tree building, property
>>resolution and layout models. A lot of that development is desisn
>>speculation, such as the design notes I have been posting, and there is
>>also a fair bit of code, all of which resides with my ISP, references to
>>which I post every now and then.
>>
>
>I don't like what I think is happening.
>The FOP community is here, what does your ISP have to do with it?
>
>You have the *right* to branch and continue parallel development here. This
>is how it should be done. If not, it's not a FOP effort, it's your personal
>game.
>
...
>
>IMHO it's not necessary, but you have more experience than me on this.
>
>The fact that I didn't even know of your effort, and still don't know where
>the code is disturbes me somewhat.
>We are talking about having to depend on iText, but it seems to me that your
>effort is not different in this regard.
>
>Don't get me wrong, maybe I don't understand something, but still I'm very
>puzzled.
>
Nicola,
Your criticism here distresses me somewhat. How is anyone without
commit access able to branch the code? I have been active on this list
for twelve months or more, so your not knowing of my effort reflects the
fact that you have recently joined.
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by Keiron Liddle <ke...@aftexsw.com>.
On 2002.03.15 08:27 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> I think that the FOP community needs an explanation of my intrusion.
> I am a committer on the POI, Cocoon and Forrest projects, and a happy
> user
> of FOP for work.
> I wrote an XML semantic WYSIWYG editor in java that uses Avalon and
> specifies style with formatting objects, so I read the FO spec fully at
> least 3 times ;-)
> I've been following the FOP evolution with great interest, and now I
> would
> like to actively partecipate to this new FOP redesign.
>
> Expect a RT from me very soon on a the FOP-NG architecture based on
> Avalon I
> have in mind :-)
I welcome your help (and I am sure others do too).
The are certainly a number areas that need improvement such as the
configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>From: "Arved Sandstrom" <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>
>
...
> I read the FO spec fully at
>least 3 times ;-)
>
Impossible!
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
From: "Arved Sandstrom" <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>
> You're 100% right - Apache XML is not just about Java. But programming
> language is not the reason xslfo-proc is not a sideproject to FOP. It is
all
> about community. If this codebase was side-by-side with FOP right now it
> would be a distraction at best. It would (possibly) divert resources from
> FOP rather than independently develop its own. That's not just my opinion;
> there have been discussions about alternate implementations before and I
> think there is a consensus that we don't diffuse the FOP effort at this
> time. But there is also no rule that any of us XSL enthusiasts cannot
pursue
> parallel experiments, and that is what xslfo-proc is for me.
I understand your point of view and I respect it.
Since I didn't follow the discussions you refer to, I remain with what you
refer that the FOP community has decided; it makes sense and it is based on
the good life of the community.
Now FOP AFAIK wants to be based on SAX, iText offered to collaborate
closely, and there are indipendedt efforts of defining a new FOP codebase.
Keiron is doing an *awesome* job in explaining what FOP is all about, and
many developers are willing to take part.
Everything is ready for a project boost ;-)
I think that the FOP community needs an explanation of my intrusion.
I am a committer on the POI, Cocoon and Forrest projects, and a happy user
of FOP for work.
I wrote an XML semantic WYSIWYG editor in java that uses Avalon and
specifies style with formatting objects, so I read the FO spec fully at
least 3 times ;-)
I've been following the FOP evolution with great interest, and now I would
like to actively partecipate to this new FOP redesign.
Expect a RT from me very soon on a the FOP-NG architecture based on Avalon I
have in mind :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: development status
Posted by Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>.
Comments below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
Sent: March 14, 2002 11:07 AM
To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: development status
From: "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>
[ SNIP ]
> Arved is, as you know, engaged in a
> C/C++ project for a fast, small footprint FO Processor over at
> SourceForge, and I copy all of my design discussions to him. He has
> just committed another set of perl modules to his prototype.
Why not put it here, in FOP.
Hey, xml.apache is not only Java. Has this been tried?
-----End of Original Message-----
I've had the urge to try a SAX-based approach that uses C/C++ for quite a
while. The main motivation behind C/C++ is so that SWIG can be used and
therefore open the door at one fell swoop for Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby etc
etc. The main motivation behind SAX is to radically reduce memory
consumption.
I've only really gotten started on a prototype after the New Year. Prior to
that I had too much other stuff going on - job switching (one employer going
bust, working on a contract, and now fulltime again with a new employer),
personal affairs (nothing bad, just that real life intrudes from time to
time :-)), and quite frankly, a certain amount of FOP burnout - I was fed up
with the codebase and needed to take a break.
In the interim Keiron and Karen have really stepped up to the plate. They
are doing great stuff. As it stands you can only have so many people doing
what they are doing - 2 is about the limit - so I, like others, am waiting
for the right moment to get involved in the redesign coding again. You may
have noted that I volunteered to look at image support for the redesign and
I am devoting time to that this weekend, so I haven't forsaken FOP in the
least.
Why is xslfo-proc (the Sourceforge project) not in Apache XML? Because the
tide has turned for people wishing to make donations of unsupported
codebases. A SAX-based, non-Java XSL formatter is basically an entirely
different project - the rule of thumb these days is that you incubate the
project somewhere else, like Sourceforge, develop a user and developer
community, and then and only then do you look at bringing it into the Apache
fold. And I completely agree with this.
You're 100% right - Apache XML is not just about Java. But programming
language is not the reason xslfo-proc is not a sideproject to FOP. It is all
about community. If this codebase was side-by-side with FOP right now it
would be a distraction at best. It would (possibly) divert resources from
FOP rather than independently develop its own. That's not just my opinion;
there have been discussions about alternate implementations before and I
think there is a consensus that we don't diffuse the FOP effort at this
time. But there is also no rule that any of us XSL enthusiasts cannot pursue
parallel experiments, and that is what xslfo-proc is for me.
I hope that answers a few questions.
Regards,
Arved Sandstrom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
From: "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>
> There is very active development on FO Tree building, property
> resolution and layout models. A lot of that development is desisn
> speculation, such as the design notes I have been posting, and there is
> also a fair bit of code, all of which resides with my ISP, references to
> which I post every now and then.
I don't like what I think is happening.
The FOP community is here, what does your ISP have to do with it?
You have the *right* to branch and continue parallel development here. This
is how it should be done. If not, it's not a FOP effort, it's your personal
game.
> Arved is, as you know, engaged in a
> C/C++ project for a fast, small footprint FO Processor over at
> SourceForge, and I copy all of my design discussions to him. He has
> just committed another set of perl modules to his prototype.
Why not put it here, in FOP.
Hey, xml.apache is not only Java. Has this been tried?
> The
> approach of both Arved and me is revolutionary rather than evolutionary,
> primarily, I think, because both of us feel that the requirements are so
> complex and interrelated that the design of all of the phases must
> proceed in parallel, which also means that everything is up for grabs.
IMHO it's not necessary, but you have more experience than me on this.
The fact that I didn't even know of your effort, and still don't know where
the code is disturbes me somewhat.
We are talking about having to depend on iText, but it seems to me that your
effort is not different in this regard.
Don't get me wrong, maybe I don't understand something, but still I'm very
puzzled.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>.
Keiron,
You have pre-empted my last post on this topic.
Keiron Liddle wrote:
> On 2002.03.14 10:55 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Ok, nice. This seems more like evolution than revolution, am I right?
>
>
> You could say that.
> The code is forming a revolution, not the people. We needed to go back
> a bit and approach things from a different angle.
>
>> Are there any projects underway to change the processing model?
>
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean but there are probably no projects
> as such. Peter is looking at alternatives.
>
>> How about the new property resolving proposal.
>
>
> No active development that I am aware of. Maybe Peter can elaborate.
There is very active development on FO Tree building, property
resolution and layout models. A lot of that development is desisn
speculation, such as the design notes I have been posting, and there is
also a fair bit of code, all of which resides with my ISP, references to
which I post every now and then. Arved is, as you know, engaged in a
C/C++ project for a fast, small footprint FO Processor over at
SourceForge, and I copy all of my design discussions to him. He has
just committed another set of perl modules to his prototype. The
approach of both Arved and me is revolutionary rather than evolutionary,
primarily, I think, because both of us feel that the requirements are so
complex and interrelated that the design of all of the phases must
proceed in parallel, which also means that everything is up for grabs.
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by Keiron Liddle <ke...@aftexsw.com>.
On 2002.03.14 10:55 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ok, nice. This seems more like evolution than revolution, am I right?
You could say that.
The code is forming a revolution, not the people. We needed to go back a
bit and approach things from a different angle.
> Are there any projects underway to change the processing model?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean but there are probably no projects as
such. Peter is looking at alternatives.
> How about the new property resolving proposal.
No active development that I am aware of. Maybe Peter can elaborate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>.
Nicola,
Comments interspersed.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>From: "Keiron Liddle" <ke...@aftexsw.com>
>
>>There was a notice of this a number of months ago. Admittedly we have it
>>the other way around. Maintenance releases are made from a branch. So the
>>main branch is where the active development is happening.
>>
>
>Ok. Makes sense since the community has common views.
>
I suppose that depends on how you define "community".
>>So where are we:
>>I am going to great lengths to describe how it all works so others will
>>have the knowledge to help out.
>>
>
>I've seen it and it's very very well done.
>My sincere compliments :-)
>
Yes, that was a good idea.
>>Many others are helping with ideas and requirements.
>>Not much code is getting done because people are busy and the issues are
>>complex (many of the side issues are being dealt with)
>>The maintenance branch is being updated for bugs etc.
>>
>>I am hoping people will get to a point where they feel ready to jump in.
>>
>>So what needs to be done:
>>Finish the implementation of the line layout
>>do the page layout
>>then do all fo's
>>handle other issues
>>then hopefully we will be ready for a developers release (version number
>>yet to be decided)
>>
>
>Ok, nice. This seems more like evolution than revolution, am I right?
>Are there any projects underway to change the processing model?
>How about the new property resolving proposal.
>
>Sorry if I keep asking, but I got a bit confused reading some mails on the
>list.
>
I made an attempt to explain this recently. Maybe Keiron can try. Keiron?
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: development status
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
From: "Keiron Liddle" <ke...@aftexsw.com>
> (as a guess I would say you haven't beed subscribed long enough :)
;-)
> There was a notice of this a number of months ago. Admittedly we have it
> the other way around. Maintenance releases are made from a branch. So the
> main branch is where the active development is happening.
Ok. Makes sense since the community has common views.
> So where are we:
> I am going to great lengths to describe how it all works so others will
> have the knowledge to help out.
I've seen it and it's very very well done.
My sincere compliments :-)
> Many others are helping with ideas and requirements.
> Not much code is getting done because people are busy and the issues are
> complex (many of the side issues are being dealt with)
> The maintenance branch is being updated for bugs etc.
Ok.
> I am hoping people will get to a point where they feel ready to jump in.
>
> So what needs to be done:
> Finish the implementation of the line layout
> do the page layout
> then do all fo's
> handle other issues
> then hopefully we will be ready for a developers release (version number
> yet to be decided)
Ok, nice. This seems more like evolution than revolution, am I right?
Are there any projects underway to change the processing model?
How about the new property resolving proposal.
Sorry if I keep asking, but I got a bit confused reading some mails on the
list.
Thank you :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org