At 11:05 AM 7/19/01 +1000, Mark Lillywhite wrote:
>I hope to have my final changes completed today at which time I will 
>post a summary of them and submit them for inclusion... they are not too 
>major. I have modified all of the renderers to suit and have a slightly 
>different API and calling sequence. But I'm happy to send a JAR and the 
>sources to anyone who wants them earlier.

You can certainly fire them over to me - I'll be happy to test.

>One of the main problems with FOP IMHO is not that it is poorly designed 
>but that there has been little control over the quality of the code that 
>is present there. There are wild variations in the code, assumptions 
>made in it, commenting, use of public/private members, coupling, 
>cohesion, maturity, you name it and it changes from file to file and 
>module to module. I make this observation because a redesign of FOP is 
>not going to make these issues go away - another solution is required.

Well, yeah, you're right. Rather than comment on this further right now, 
because I want to crash out, let's just agree that redesign is another issue 
entirely (in fact we really do need one, I believe), and that reformatting 
is just a stopgap - it doesn't address the issues you mention. Over the next 
couple of weeks we'll obviously have to hash this out.

The design is still holding its own (you'd have to read the archives to get 
a feel for why we want to move on, but all that discussion pertains to a 
"FOP 2"), but one real problem is the lack of design documentation - docs & 
diagrams. Another real problem is that we are operating sort of at a CMM 
Level 1 - the project is succeeding because of individuals and not because 
of process. All stuff we need to talk about, definitely.


Fairly Senior Software Type
e-plicity (
Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to