I have done so now. I've added a new (sub)page to the Wiki to avoid making the FOPAvalonization page even longer.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?FOPAvalonization/AltAPIProposalJM While writing down my thought about the API I have come to the realization that I cannot make up my mind about the inner context classes Victor has come up with. But I think he's quite close: - Session: Looks like my and Jörg's FOProcessor to me. The user interacts with this class to configure FOP and do processing runs. - Document and RenderContext: I'm not sure but I think these two should be merged. I've called it ProcessorContext in my proposal at first, but then chose not to include them in the proposal right now because I didn't quite know what to put in there. The thing I know is that we need a central data object that keeps references while the FOProcessor implementation coordinates the processing (data separated from logic). - Renderer: You guys hate me for that, I know, but I still refuse to give it so much visibility in these discussions. In my proposal I've separated the logic from the data again (with JAXP as role-model) and made the Renderer a totally normal Avalon service that is being looked up by MIME type in the background. The FOPResult classes account for the differences of output types. The FOProcessor impl is responsible to establish the link between FOPResults and Renderer. For AWT (I'd like to call it Java2D from now on if you guys agree. That's the official name of the API after all.) I've tried to introduce an interface that clients can use to interact with the Java2D renderer. So, I don't have anything more concrete on the inner "glue" that keeps the whole process together but maybe my proposal brings some new ideas. I'd like to hear your thoughts about my proposal (flaws, nodding, missing things etc.). I hope that we can find a common path for the whole thing. Important to me is to have a good terminology and an API that conforms to the requirements I've written down on the FOPAvalonization page. Side note WRT resolvers: I've only placed the SourceResolver in the API because I think that the other resolvers are not necessary. I'm not certain about that but this can be easily added later. On 20.06.2003 21:40:09 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > On 20.06.2003 21:34:28 J.Pietschmann wrote: > > Could you outline your API ideas on the Wiki? > > Yes, please. I'm also in the process of writing down my ideas. That way > it will be much easier to relate everyone's ideas to each other. At the > moment I wish we could all sit together and figure it out by talking > together and painting on a whiteboard. The Wiki will have to suffice I > guess. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
