Thanks for your work!
...I *really* like the approach of having the independent package, and recommend that we use the same approach for other StructureRenderers, including MIF....
Yes, the StructureRenderer interface nicely decouples these renderers from the rest of FOP.
Maybe a new build target that creates a standalone fop-rtflib.jar would be good?
I'd still keep rtflib in the main fop.jar, but offer a standalone rtflib in addition.
Note that the interest for a MIF renderer is probably lower than it was before, as newer versions of FrameMaker can import XML directly and combine it with (homegrown) style mappings.
...1. How much does the API need to be protected? Are we pretty free to change
it as we see fit, or will that mess up existing jfor users too much? ...
It is hard to say, although there have been several thousand downloads of jfor since it was created, the feedback from users is comparatively very small so we don't have a precise idea of how many people are doing what.
I know some people are using the RTF API directly, but have no idea how many.
I think you can go ahead with API changes that improve the library or are required for refactoring (see below comments about RtfText).
...Specifically, I am tempted to move some of the
constants (alignment and indentation for example) in RtfText to RtfParagraph
for a more intuitive interface....
Makes sense.
An alternative would be to define constants in interfaces (RtfAlignConstants, RtfParaConstants etc) to group them, and have the classes that use them implement these interfaces to make the values directly available. This would be more compatible with the existing API I think.
...what do you think of the idea of building a Border object with those axes as properties...
Sounds good.
IIRC this border stuff has been contributed in small bits and pieces to jfor, with no real design, so some refactoring is welcome.
...I'm guessing there are some other concepts that will benefit from such an approach as well....
Yes, you've probably seen code that is too "linear" and could benefit from better object design.
...have changed
RtfParagraph.writeRtfPrefix() to write the text attributes as well as the
paragraph attribute....
If one can still set text attributes on individual text runs inside a paragraph as well, then fine.
I'm not happy with the current design of RtfText embedded in RtfParagraph - although this maps well to the XSL-FO model ("elements"), it does not map well to the RTF model ("text runs" I think, but still somewhat mysterious after all these years ;-).
This causes problem in jfor where nested paragraphs and inlines are sometimes output in the wrong order. I think a "flatter" design of the RtfText vs. RtfParagraph model would help.
-Bertrand
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
