-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... ;)]


--- "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.

Reply via email to