I moved RTF and MIF to new fop.render.* packages. 
Also the RTF Library has been moved under render.rtf. 
Now most of our render-type specific code is under its
respective render type in our package structure.  I
hope this becomes a cleaner design, if not we can
revisit moving non-render specific code to separate
lib directories later.

I will hold off doing anything with the PDF library
still at the root until its use in FOP is further
analyzed.  (Perhaps more than one package is needed,
or some files are obsolete, etc., etc.)  I don't see a
rush on this, however--it can stay there for quite
some time.

Another issue I was working on last weekend--still
unsolved--was that in 1.0 layout, fo:block
space-before is being added to the top of *each* page
that the block consumes (instead of just once at the
top of the block).  This may take some time to
fix--I'll keep working on it.


--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2.) Move org.apache.fop.rtf.renderer to
> > org.apache.fop.render.rtf.  It doesn't matter that
> the
> > RTF renderer doesn't need an area tree, or descend
> > from our, etc.,
> etc.--actually,
> > that may be something to celebrate.  For the solid
> > foundation that Victor was talking about, the
> > renderers should be placed together in the same
> > package--sooner or later they're probably all
> going to
> > be implementing a common (very) high-level
> interface
> > anyway.
> > 
> > [Are you in sufficient agreement on this one,
> > Victor...if you can take of this with Peter's
> latest
> > patch, that would be great...]
> +0, too.
> > 3.) Move the rest of the rtf packages under
> > org.apache.fop.render.rtf.  No more rtf in FOP's
> root.
> >  (This issue is more controversial than #2 above,
> and
> > can wait.)
> I don't see why this is more controversial than #2.
> It's practically the
> same as #2.
> +0

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

Reply via email to