I would not think that adding iText would necessarily preclude the other
renderers. My guess would be that iText could interface via a Renderer
interface as the current Renderers do. My concern would be that the current
renderers share a lot of code (either be reusing classes or by copying
source). Ideally there would be even greater reuse in the future (without
iText). In addition to saving coding effort, this helps ensure that the
output produced by the various renderers (especially PDF, PCL, and PS) is
similar. With PDF rendering in a separate project I am concerned that there
may be a reduction of code reuse in this area and more difficulty in
maintaining consistent output from different renderers. Perhaps the benefits
outweigh the costs.

Just my $0.02,

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph LaChance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] FOP+iText = FOP-NG -next generation- (was:
merging two libraries)

I'm wondering if marying FOP +iText would sacrifice the
-awt -print -ps options.  (Same question for -text, but i'm
personally not interested in that.)

At 10:58 AM 3/13/02, you wrote:
>Given what has been said on the mailing lists of FOP and iText, and given
>the current scope of the two projects, I feel reasonably sure that this
>could be a proposal accepted by bot communities.
>  FOP uses iText as a PDF generation library
>This could have greater benefits than a merger and keep intact the
>that these two projects have (remember AOL+Time Warner? is the result we
>iText could continue to be an excellent PDF (and RTF AFAIK) generation
>package with a good java API.
>FOP could concentrate on FO2AreaTree and use iText as the last step.
>Given the licences, nobody is prohibited to cross-collaborate. iText
>developers can send patches to FOP and viceversa, and be [VOTE]d as usual
>when the time is right.
>FOP can distribute iText jar as it's MPL, and both projects would
>in a clear way.
>AFAIK iText is already able to produce PDF using an XML file. If FOP could
>make a transformation step from FO to this format, we could get this up
>running in a short time.
>And IText can also output to html, which is not bad at all.
>What do you think?
>Shall we pull this off?
>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]

         ' Best,
         -Ralph LaChance

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

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

Reply via email to