The Jasper result was in fact transitioned to Struts Action 2, however, it was
moved to the extras module. ASF is ok with us shipping code that depends on
LGPL jars as long as:
1. The jars aren't included in our distribution
2. The default build doesn't automatically retrieve the jars
3.
On 6/6/06, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
No. FOP = whatever. I consider anything -- PDF to be out of scope / too
specialised here.
Ah, ok, gotcha, I understand now :)
PDF generation is a fairly common thing to do from a webapp though, no?
No, not really.
Martin Cooper wrote:
I
don't see PDF generation, *assuming it's a somewhat limited capability*,
to be too specialized.
I do. Sorry, but it's just not in the same league as other much more common
cases.
Well, as compared to SSO, LDAP, persistence, etc., I would agree :) But
as compared
On 6/6/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/6/06, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
No. FOP = whatever. I consider anything -- PDF to be out of scope /
too
specialised here.
Ah, ok, gotcha, I understand now :)
PDF generation is a fairly common
WebWork has a Jasper result[1]. It was not
transitioned to Struts
Action 2 because of the licensing issue. The code
should be readily
adaptable for those who want to use it, and perhaps
it could be kept
alive either as part of Jasper Reports' development,
or in a
SourceForge
On 6/7/06, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's always struts.sourceforge.net :)
(which, by the way, we'll probably want to touch up a bit for SAF2 at
some point, at least to bring the naming inline).
If you do, we should add the disclaimer This site is not affiliated
with the
On Wed, June 7, 2006 2:16 am, Craig McClanahan wrote:
I didn't make it clear in my previous comment ... but I totally agree with
Martin that actually *building* an anything-PDF converter as part of
Struts
is out of scope.
But that's a different thing from providing a PdfResult interface that
Hi all, I'm not as active as most of you, maybe I'm too new too
dev-list, just learning the way to post and that stuff.
I don't pretend to merchandise anything here, just giving clues hoping
they are usefull ;)
Yes, I agree, going the route of FOP, or something similar, certainly
implies a
On 6/5/06, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I think your right about that too. PDFBox looks interesting...
although I'm not sure I want to build against something that hasn't had
a 1.0 release yet (hehe, JWP excepted of course!! LOL)
I wouldn't be concerned about that. After
At 8:39 AM +0200 6/6/06, Juan Ara wrote:
JasperReports (http://jasperreports.sourceforge.net) is an xml
schema for iText, in a similar (but I think far more extensive and
complex than yours). It handles XML files, turns them into iText
code and the you pass a DataSource interface to fill the
Joe, was there anything else along these lines that wasn't transitioned
for this (or any other) reason? I'm wondering if a subproject at
http://struts.sourceforge.net might be in order for such orphans?
Frank
Joe Germuska wrote:
At 8:39 AM +0200 6/6/06, Juan Ara wrote:
JasperReports
On 6/5/06, Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 3:38 PM -0400 6/5/06, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Not a bad idea... I've never been a big fan of XSLT, always seemed overly
difficult to me for what it was, but certainly sticking with a standard
has appeal, and I've done a little bit of FOP
Martin Cooper wrote:
I agree that this doesn't sound like something that should happen here.
Your saying that in terms of the custom XML wrapper around
iText/PDFBox/whatever, right? I.e., going the FOP direction is a
different story, right? I do agree, even though I've already done it
On 6/6/06, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
I agree that this doesn't sound like something that should happen here.
Your saying that in terms of the custom XML wrapper around
iText/PDFBox/whatever, right?
Yes.
I.e., going the FOP direction is a
different
On 6/6/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/6/06, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
I agree that this doesn't sound like something that should happen
here.
Your saying that in terms of the custom XML wrapper around
iText/PDFBox/whatever, right?
Martin Cooper wrote:
No. FOP = whatever. I consider anything -- PDF to be out of scope / too
specialised here.
Ah, ok, gotcha, I understand now :)
PDF generation is a fairly common thing to do from a webapp though, no?
I know I've had to do it plenty... WW has always been, from what I've
On 6/6/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/6/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/6/06, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
I agree that this doesn't sound like something that should happen
here.
Your saying that in terms of
Hey all... I find myself wanting to drive my company towards using SAF2,
or really WW for the moment, and one of the things that comes up
frequently around here that would be required, as I know it does for many
people, is PDF generation.
I was thinking of how to make this easier for people... A
I think there is also a XSLT result - I haven't researched it at all,
but another option might be to return XML from the action and then
supply a FO XSLT to turn the results into a PDF.
/Ian
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Hey all... I find myself wanting to drive my company towards using SAF2,
or
Not a bad idea... I've never been a big fan of XSLT, always seemed overly
difficult to me for what it was, but certainly sticking with a standard
has appeal, and I've done a little bit of FOP work, so it's not all new.
One thing I was thinking about for the Ajax result stuff was to have
At 3:38 PM -0400 6/5/06, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Not a bad idea... I've never been a big fan of XSLT, always seemed overly
difficult to me for what it was, but certainly sticking with a standard
has appeal, and I've done a little bit of FOP work, so it's not all new.
One thing I was thinking
Joe Germuska wrote:
It depends a lot upon your use case -- but for starters, this very
question suggests that if you do write anything, you should call it
ITextResult, or FOPResult, not PDFResult.
Yes, I agree, going the route of FOP, or something similar, certainly
implies a more generic
22 matches
Mail list logo
