----- Original Message -----
From: "Berin Loritsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [C2]: Final list for beta
>
> --- Colin Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > - can we make Batik act nicer? It's throwing alot
> > of Exceptions which
> > > might be because it was not designed to run in a
> > server/servlet
> > > environment or we use it the wrong way? Is
> > anyone on the batik list
> > > or more familiar with it? Batik starts with a
> > TranscoderException
> > > encloseing a null Exception and one that states
> > "Connection reset
> > > by peer". Any suggestions?
> >
> > Our SVGSerializer works by building a DOM document
> > object and passing this
> > to Batik. This was because when the first Batik
> > Transcoder was made
> > available that was the only way you could do it.
> > Since that first release
> > that the SVGSerializer was based on was produced the
> > transcoder interface
> > was rewritten. In that new interface came support
> > for a
> > org.xml.sax.XMLReader and I believe full SAX2
> > support. It would probably a
> > good idea to change to this interface rather than
> > the current
> > implementation.
> >
> > People wiser than me in these matters may have a
> > different opinion, but I
> > would hate for us to be using the wrong way of
> > interfacing with batik
> > because we did'nt know better.
>
>
> I agree completely. So it can handle SAX huh?
> I wonder how much quicker it would make image then...
>
I am not sure on the internals as to how much quicker performance it would
be (after all the rendering it is doing is pretty expensive), but it might
be cleaner and less prone to throwing exceptions (socket closed etc). Also
why do the work externally of building the DOM if they have it internalized.
rgds
CB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
