From: "New, Cecil (GEAE)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> My suggestion was *not* to merge the two!
>
> iText is a Java API with a document creation focus.  In this day and age,
> XSL:FO can be viewed as just another document type - in the same way that
> more proprietary or older formats are (that is, PDF, RTF, etc.).

Sorry if it's a bit off-topic, but this issue is similar to the one we just
managed to handle between POI (http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/) and Cocoon
(http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/).

POI is a project that makes it possible to read-write common office file
formats in Java.
Cocoon is an XML processing framework-server.

The POI team donated a Cocoon component that uses POI and outputs XML, but
on the Cocoon side, committers saw too much POI code in it.

Basically we understood that a project to read-write a file format should
have a solid Java API. Other projects can use it to produce other results.
Merging is not the best solution, both for developers and users.

>From this experience, I would humbly suggest that, after getting the
licencing stuff straight, FOP could be refactored to use iText as a PDF
generation step.
In this way communities can focus on a smaller part of the project with
greater efficiency, and the two products may have a much wider applicability
than a single merged one.

Since iText has a strong community behind it, since it would like to
integrate code with FOP, thus coming to Apache, and since FOP could use part
of it proficiently, I would like to see iText make a proposal at Jakarta for
the creation of a project.
All details for this are under
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html .

What do you think?

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
            - verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Reply via email to