Jeremias Maerki wrote:

> > > I'm a bit unhappy that you placed/left Session in the apps package. I
> > > would like to see the apps package deprecated as a whole over time. I
> > > would like a cli package that only contains the stuff needed for the
> > > command line and I'd like to have (wish, not a demand) the
> main FOP api
> > > in the org.apache.fop package.
> >
> > My humble apologies. What is the easiest way to roll it back?
> Is there an
> > automated way?
> I wasn't vetoing your changes, merely pointing out possible differences.
> You didn't need to revert. But do you agree with what I wrote?

Reversion is already completed -- if other changes start getting checked in,
then it becomes a much more difficult task. WRT to the location of the
"Session" concept, I don't have strong feelings about it the way some others
do, and I viewed that as an issue that could be resolved later by simply
moving it wherever you guys decided it should go.

> > OK. In my terminology, Session is a long-lived object that
> lives, well, for
> > the Session. Document are children of Session. The only part of
> Session that
> > you have seen is a renaming of Driver to Session. That is all
> that has been
> > committed so far. But eventually nearly all of existing Driver
> gets pushed
> > down to Document, RenderContext, and RenderTask. The only thing
> that really
> > still lives in Session is the logging stuff, and it might belong with
> > Document (under my scheme).
> That's not what I'm talking about. Do we all agree on this
> terminology? Can
> we find better classnames for what they are? These are key elements in
> FOP's architecture. I'd like to have good names for them so they are
> easily understandable even by outsiders. If you use Session you'll get
> all sorts of strange questions. I'm pretty sure about that.

I am not committed to the name "Session", but can't think of a better name,
even with the help of my trusty thesaurus. I think FrameMaker uses that name
in its FDK API. Microsoft uses "Application" for the equivalent concept in
its Office 2000 object model. I didn't like "Driver" much or I would have
left it alone (that implies a different concept to me). I suppose
FOPInstance, or RuntimeInstance might work. I didn't realize that there
would be misunderstandings of "Session".

> > Yes, I am talking about GoF Singleton. I understand the
> reluctance to use
> > static variables, but I haven't adopted the no-tolerance
> approach that you
> > have. The alternative is to either carry the static information
> around with
> > you in every method that might need it, or to actually store
> the information
> > in every object that might need it. I already see that with the
> logging. If
> > it is needed, then OK, but I don't see it yet.
> So I guess it's a matter of community decision what is preferred. Going
> for statics and singleton is certainly easier but it'll carry you away
> from the Avalon style of life. I have no problem if the majority of
> committers think that Avalon should be thrown out. I didn't manage to
> introduce the Avalon-patterns, yet, and it looks like I'm the only one
> really pushing it so far but without enough power.

I'm not opposed to Avalon, but I might be if I understood it. It probably
seems lazy that I am not up to speed on it yet -- I have tried a couple of
times to get the big picture from the doc, but concluded that I won't get my
arms around it until I use it (IOW, the doc wasn't very helpful).

If the static construct and Avalan are mutually exclusive, the former seems
far less invasive, and easier both to implement and un-implement. However, I
realize that there are more things that you want to do with Avalon that
might require that invasiveness anyway. Sorry I am not more help here.

Victor Mote

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

Reply via email to