At 04:56 AM 6/14/01 +0800, Seshadri GK wrote:
>i have just been looking about to see is there any stable/mature typesettign
>system where we can borrow the algorithm. I have just started looking at Tex
>and groff. Do u think its a good place to start? I would like to see what
>has been done in these systems to do intelligent page layout. Since the
>layout is what needs changing most, I suggest that bug-fixes for those
>portions of fop which will not need major tweaking of layout related code,
>can continued to be fixed. Problems like row-span, floating objects could be
>postponed for the revamped fop.
>
>I would be starting to do the reachitecturing of fop-layout, and anything
>positive that might come out shall be discussed and committed with FOP.
We should establish exactly what it is that we are talking about here -
layout improvements on the existing development track, so as to facilitate
refinement of existing features and addition of new ones, or the complete
re-design of FOP.
I think the general consensus so far is that a "re-architecting" will be a
lengthy affair, and simply cannot be done to the existing development track
without stalling other work for a considerable period. A re-architecting
indicates a second track and a second team, leading to an improved FOP.
It would be useful to pin down precisely who wishes to work on what, I think.
I suggest that we immediately (i.e., deliverables due before end of month)
do the following:
1. Produce a new FOP Mission/Objectives statement (the existing one is on
the website and is obsolete); this statement should (at a high-level)
acknowledge 2 tracks, one leading to FOP 1 (listing the goals for that), and
one leading to FOP 2 (ditto) - input from everyone encouraged;
2. Produce a release plan based on the above (this order seems topsy-turvy,
a bit, but I think this plan needs to drive what we hope to achieve from FOP
1 in particular, not the other way around); committers need to prepare &
vote on this (but community input is encouraged);
3. Re-do/improve/create design docs for FOP 1, including spelling out
improvements and enhancements work (i.e. these docs will describe existing
stuff _and_ anticipated stuff) - everyone involved;
4. Issue initial architectural documents for FOP 2, for _review_.
Let me elaborate on 4. Karen Lease and myself already have a fair amount of
time put in on "re-architecting". This effort has not been conducted in
secrecy, and we have incorporated external input. Furthermore, the
deliverables of what we are doing are _proposed_ designs. Everyone who is
interested will then get another chance to shape those some more. As much as
possible we are talking about coordinated effort here.
I am most definitely not singling out Seshadri here, and I apologize in
advance if it seems that way. I am however singling out the specific thing
that he wants to do. I want to make it clear that in an ASF project, that
coordination and cooperation is everything.
I understand the impetus and the motivation behind the several outside
efforts. I work in software development in real-life, after all - I know how
things are. In my experience communication and shared understanding is the
key to making differing interests mesh, and that usually translates into
publicly-available and agreed-upon basic documents such as the ones I listed
above.
Hoping for feedback.
Regards,
Arved Sandstrom
Fairly Senior Software Type
e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
