Regarding the concern for too many changes or compatibility issues, I have two comments:
1. The install base of Mav users seems small at this time which talks to the size of the impact. 2. All you're suggesting is a slightly revised mav.xml file -- All this means to me is a few minutes typing and it'll be behind me. So, I wouldn't worry about these issues. Full stream ahead! (If you want to do something nice, I would limit it to forcing an error if the new version reads an old-style xml file.) Dan PS. Does it make sense to consider the capability of transforming xml with dvsl to html, then through velocity in this step? At 01:19 AM 4/26/02 -0700, Jeff Schnitzer wrote: >I really like the fop view, but I think it makes more sense as a >transform... and of course, this screams out the need for being able to >hook up multiple transform types. I'd love to run my model through a >couple XSLs to produce formatting objects and then finally through a fop >transform to produce PDF. > >I've been giving a lot of thought to this, and I no longer think it >would be very hard to do. However, it would require changing the >View/ViewFactory and Transform/TransformFactory interfaces in a >not-backwards-compatible way. > >We would probably also want to change the syntax of transform >definitions from: > ><view name="blah"> > <transform> > <path value="foo.xsl"/> > <path value="bar.xsl"/> > </transform> ></view> > >..to: > ><view name="blah"> > <transform path="foo.xsl"/> > <transform path="bar.xsl"/> ></view> > >Fortunately, with the Maverick 2.0 ability to define an XSL to transform >the config file at load time, it would be trivial to automatically adapt >existing config files. > >This would be kind of a lot of API changes in a relatively short period >of time. What do you guys think? > >Jeff Schnitzer >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jim moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 7:21 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Mav-user] fop view for maverick > > > > Thought I would let everyone know that I've made a custom view that >uses > > fop > > (http://xml.apache.org/fop/) to > > generate a pdf. > > > > I'm not completely convinced that a view is the approproate choice for > > this > > functionality, though, so I'd like to get some feedback. This is >slightly > > different than a standard mav view in that its output is inherently > > non-transformable (the output is binary pdf data). > > > > A command using this view currently looks like: > > > > <command name="fop"> > > <view name="SUCCESS" type="fop" path="foptest.jsp"/> > > </command> > > > > One nice thing is that path can be any url within this webapp that > > produces > > a valid fo file, so it should be able point to another maverick >command > > and > > get its transforms that way (haven't tried this): > > > > <command name="fop" class="someController"> > > <view name="pdf" type="fop" path="foptest.m"/> > > <view name="html"> > > <transform> > > <path value="raw.xsl"/> > > <path value="to-html.xsl"/> > > </transform> > > </view> > > </command> > > > > <command name="foptest"> > > <view name="SUCCESS"> > > <transform> > > <path value="raw.xsl"/> > > <path value="to-pdf.xsl"/> > > </transform> > > </view> > > </command> > > > > Its working nicely. I've attached the relevant source files, but the >war > > file is 4.5mb (needs fop.jar, batik.jar, etc), so I decided I'd just > > sending > > a link to it instead of clogging your inboxes: > > > > http://www.scolamoore.com/opt-fop.war > > > > Anyway, do you think a custom view is the way to go with this or do >you > > think another type is more appropriate? I thought about using a custom > > command and it seems to make more sense in some ways, but I wasn't >sure > > how > > to go about it--unlike ViewFactory, CommandFactory is a concrete >class, > > not > > an interface. > > > > I think the functionality is nice--easy way to get mav to take the >same > > data > > and generate html or a pdf (as in the second example). Using batik, >svg > > view > > should be pretty straightforward to create as well. Just not sure if >I'm > > bending the architecture too much. > > > > --jim > > >_______________________________________________ >Mav-user mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mav-user _______________________________________________ Mav-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mav-user
