I'm pleasantly surprised by your proposal. Wasn't it you who wanted the
servlet in the main source tree a year ago?

On 08.02.2004 00:38:35 J.Pietschmann wrote:
> There ought to be a less messy approach. It could be an idea
> to move the various packages to different base directories,
> making FOP essentially a multi-subproject project similar
> to jakarta commons. This way each subpackage has its own
> buildfile and lib directory, and dependencies become more
> clear. In order to manage the cross package dependencies and
> dependencies outside of FOP, Maven seems to be the tool of
> choice. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a Maven wizard to
> asses this completely. Is there somebody out there with more
> time at hand to look at these issues?
> 1. I'd like to get rid of the servlet.jar in our CVS.
> 2. If we standardize on JDK 1.4 as base (as it currently
>   is), we could drop the Xerces, Xalan and xml-api jars as
>   well. Our Jars seem to be somewhat outdated anyway.

"If we standardize..." triggers something inside me: I'd like to put on
record that I request a vote (by someone who really cares) on the issue
of making JDK 1.4 a minimal requirement for FOP. I still don't buy it.
For the AWT renderer, any time, but not for the rest. I won't block
either, but I want this done properly. I may request that certain parts
of FOP (base libraries like PDF and fonts for example) remain compatible
with JDK 1.3. Especially the Batik transcoders for PDF and PostScript
should remain JDK 1.3 compatible as Batik still has JDK 1.3 (AFAIK) and
the transcoders and supporting code should move to a common subproject
in the future "XML Graphics" (or whatever) PMC. If the Batik team
changes the minimum requirements this could, of course, look different,
but that's how it looks today. BTW, Cocoon, an important FOP customer,
is also still on JDK 1.3. It me be good prior to taking a decision to
ask these two projects about their plans in the regard.

Sorry to be a pain. :-)


Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to