To all FOP developers: We are pleased to offer that, anyone in the FOP team who can fix this memory problem of FOP could contact us and we make a contract with him/her for fixing this bug.
Regards Ali Farahani [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 4:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Just a stupid question ... =P Thomas Sporbeck wrote: > I'm far from understanding FOP deep enough to implement this > feature/change (in that way source is source wether it's open or > not and it's not easy to join such a project), just: if so many > people have problems at the same point, perhaps someone of the > "masters of FOP" has the time (and we all know how "expensive" > free time is) to describe how to implement it or tell us if > anyone already has implemented it. As fas as I understood there > is a solution for the problem (J. Pietschmann's suggestion) but > the developers have different opinions wether to realize it or > not - or am I wrong? (Disclaimer -- I don't want anyone to think I am pretending to be a "master of FOP"). I think you have confused two things. The fix that J. Pietschmann referred to had to do specifically with tables: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=105768455829389&w=2 AFAIK, there is no controversy among the developers about implementing his fix. It is a matter of timing. We are in a code freeze right now until the 0.20.5 release is finished, then such things can be added to code again. Even if it is never released, at least you should be able to get access to it from CVS. The point of this thread (the one on which we are now conversing) was more general, and had to do with the possibility of more FOP-controlled disk i/o for the purpose of handling larger documents, regardless of whether tables were involved or not. Again, I think everyone understands that you've got to write to disk. We are still sorting out some control issues that need attention because they may affect where and how the disk i/o gets done. There are some issues that do need to be resolved here: 1) If you automatically start writing everything, the guy with plenty of memory is going to pay a performance penalty, 2) In any other case, some entity has to decide when to start writing. There is a possibility that we can get java (1.4 or greater) to do this thinking for us, but I am not sure. If FOP has to make the decisions, it will have to know how much memory is available, how much is used, etc. to manage this process properly. It isn't quite as easy as saying "if so many people have problems at the same point ...". There are probably a lot of people that want a free ride to the moon, but that really doesn't make it any more feasible to get them there. There are some fundamental issues that have to be resolved first. If you can help resolve them, please do so. If not, then be patient, or, as you suggested, find another solution. Victor Mote --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
