Hi Seth, "Seth Tager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/13/2006 05:23:00 PM:
> I don't think this post made it the first time. It did, I just didn't have much to add. You are correct that the Bridge package is pretty tightly tied to both the DOM and the GVT (although both of those are independent of each other). There are some pieces that are very reusable like the parsers package. But most of the stuff that the Bridge does I have a hard time imagining how to abstract without creating a whole new set of classes just to hold the data between DOM and GVT - which to be honest just doesn't make sense to me. The Bridge and GVT do try to use standard AWT classes wherever possible so depending on what your back end is you might be able to use parts of these. > Has anyone out there been able to leverage batik to build their own > internal data structures for manipulating svg docs? > > On 2/28/06, Seth Tager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'd like to read an svg document and convert it to my own internal > > object tree, similar to the way a gvt is built. It seems like the > > org.apache.batik.bridge package might be useful, but it doesn't look > > like the same kind of bridge described in Design Patterns by Gamma, > > Helms, etc.? (i.e. it seems to be tightly coupled with the GVT > > package, and _not_ meant for swapping gvt-like implementations) > > > > Is there some way I might leverage that package to build my own tree > > from an svg doc? It looks like the best i can do is to use the bridge > > and gvt packages as a template/guide for creating my own tree builder > > code. Has anyone done something like this already? > > > > Seth > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
