Can someone point me to what xslfo-proc is? I searched Google and the Apache dev archives and couldn't find anything.
Thx, Matt Savino > -----Original Message----- > From: Arved Sandstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:35 AM > To: Peter B. West > Cc: fop-dev > Subject: Re: [Xslfo-proc-devel] Re: Crossposts > > > At 12:37 AM 11/2/01 +1000, Peter B. West wrote: > >This is a response to some suggestions from Arved, excerpted below. > >Please excuse the cross-posting, but the explanation should > go to both > >ends of the posts. > > Similarly, please excuse the temporary crosspost. > > >I find myself, willy-nilly, in the process of re-designing and, > >piecemeal, rewriting chunks of FOP. I'm doing it because I > can't read > >the existing code, because I need a clean and flexible > design base to > >work from, and because I want to. At the moment I'm pretty > much on my > >own, but that may change. If not, too bad. That's the > beauty of open > >source. It's not Software Corp. > > > >My code blindness may simply reflect my not yet having an > adequate grasp > >of this OO stuff, but I don't think that is the whole story. If the > >current design were good (and beautiful and true), rather > than merely > >adequate, then surely the sensible thing would be to map the > lot into > >C++ and C where necessary. That's not what is going to happen. In > >fact, a more likely scenario is that the C design, if it proves > >successful, will be retro-fitted into Java. > > What is currently happening with FOP is a pragmatic rewrite > of just those > things that absolutely have to be changed, spearheaded by > Keiron Liddle > (with support and encouragement...). The point is, the > original FOP design > was exceeded a year ago, give or take - many things were not > accounted for, > and they are not easily added. Hopefully xslfo-proc will do > things right > from scratch (one possible right way, mind you, not the only > one). Maybe > decisions made, and experience gained, during this process > will inform a FOP > 2 design. > > >When I have cross-posted, it has been for very specific > reasons; either > >because it was a design issue which is of common interest to > both the > >direction I am taking, and to any design discussion for the problem > >domain, or because specific things that I am doing map > trivially into a > >C/C++ solution. All that I have posted concerning FObjects.java and > >FOPropertyConsts.java falls into this latter category. > These classes > >represent a great deal of donkey work in providing useful > expressions of > >the sets of constants which I imagine are absolutely > essential to C, at > >any rate. A few vi or emacs regular expressions will > convert them into > >pure C, and save someone days of effort. > > I agree. I think that this helps clarify what you are about. > I tend to agree > that there is a fair amount to be learned from how FOP does > things, whether > good or bad. > > >As for switching my efforts entirely into xslfo-proc: I > would have to > >learn C++, which I am loathe to do. FOP is my Java training > ground, and > >Java will hopefully allow me to remain in a unix/linux > ghetto, forever > >shunning NT and all its spawn. I'm a terrible bigot when it > comes to > >Microsoft. > > > >So I will continue with my attempts to wrestle, for my own > satisfaction, > >some comprehensive and comprehensible design from the spec. > Successful > >or no, I can't see that process being irrelevant to xslfo-proc. And > >along the way there may be some more bits of multi-cultural code. > > I don't think it is irrelevant either. You are operating at > the high-level > design level, where Java or C or C++ is not really an issue. > I think the > extra input into design is valuable, certainly from the xslfo-proc > perspective. I should ask, are you using a UML tool, and if > so, which one? > If not, it would be nice to get some of your ideas translated > into formal > concepts. Good thoughts seem to wither away and be ignored if > they stay > in email. > > >Thanks for the feedback, Arved. What's your work situation > like in - > >where are you? - Nova Scotia? > > Thank you for asking. :-) The company I worked for ceased > operations last > week. It disappeared. It closed down. It went away. It > shuffled off this > mortal coil. &c. &c. > > So I am starting up an interesting contract that will occupy > me for a month > or two, something that fortunately does not involve wireless > or J2EE at all, > and plan to conduct a job search at the same time. But not > here...Nova > Scotia IT has been hammered pretty badly. > > Regards, > AHS > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
