-1. I'd like to hold off on this, at least until I can gain a better understanding of the autogenerated code. I may still to the same conclusion as the other committers, but Finn's endorsement of the XSLT--as well as the long work of those like Keiron who have worked with the XSLT files--suggests that there are significant time benefits to using them. (At work, I use "SQL to write SQL" all the time, and love the time efficiencies that result.)
If we check in the Java code, then changes may end up being made to those files directly, which will result in the XSLT files becoming unregeneratable. Or, every run of the XSLT will require re-modification of the changes made manually to all the Java files--potentially dozens--100's of files. So I'm kind of leery about doing this at the moment. [Actually, I'm looking forward to studying the XSLT that generates these files--as I mentioned to Clay that CVS and Ant were two of the initial benefits you get by working on FOP, apparently being about to write Java code using XSLT is a third one...i.e., Yeehaw!, as I believe he had put it... ;)] Glen --- "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Finn Bock wrote: > > I like the generation process as it allowed me to > try out and experiment > > with different optimizations. I don't think that I > realisticly could > > have added caching of compound properties or > changed the abs2rel/rel2abs > > code if I had to change the Maker classes > manually. > > If its common code, that's what class hierarchies > and > inheritance are made for. > > J.Pietschmann > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
