[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clay Leeds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 19.05.2004 01:03:19:
It would be interesting to compare some RenderX example output between the two^H^H^H three (ArndFO, fop-0.20.5, fop-1.0Dev)... I suspect there may be other significant differences as well, with performance, heap,
etc.
Be warned that the RenderX testsuite files require a relatively high degree of spec compliance. Shorthands are used everywhere, all table
examples require auto-layout, and so on. I confess that I learned a
few more things about FO when testing with these files...
Sounds like a good exercise for someone like me, to transform those shorthand items into 'longhand'...
Shorthands have been fully handled in alt-design's properties for about 18 months now.
Then again, the more I think about it, the more it seems like Peter's train-of-thought RE: FOP development destabilization. 'We' could be working on FOP development, but instead we're talking about Arnd's (and Victor's) development efforts (I have every reason to believe it is everything he says it is), and discussing how the grass may be greener on the other side of the fence.
That's true. So let's all get back to work. 8-)
From Peter's mail:
The thing that immediately strikes me about Arnd's development is that it seems to blow away the theory that incremental modification of an existing code base is always the better way to go. IIUC, Arnd wrote a formatter from scratch (except for some fo the font handling) in two years.
I don't think what I did proves your point. Even though it worked for
me this time, it was a high risk (ok, since I was always prepared to treat this a fun project, no risk). It was really a gamble, one I wouldn't
have done under other circumstances - for example not if producing an FO
formatter had been our business then. I suppose when you look around, you
will find much, much more failed "rewrite" projects than failed "incremental" projects.
In any case, I really don't think you can compare a one-person effort to
that of a distributed group. Also, I believe this is rather a generic
software-development question. If you think you do see the light at the
end of the tunnel for the FOP rewrite then by all means go for it.
That's interesting. My view on alt.design has pretty much always been one talented guy working on the other side of the world, and coding FOP the way he always wanted to. No distractions or lengthy discussion (albeit frequently contributing insightful posts to FOP-Dev &-user). I haven't been keeping tabs on the status of alt-design lately so I don't 'know' where it is at present (I'll check the status page directly).
That won't do you much good, as I haven't updates the docs for some time now. I'm currently working on layout, using Java's facilities (including 1.3 and 1.4) for the layout engine. I'll update the pages as I make progress on this.
Btw, I'm now in the dark about the way the web pages are being maintained. It's been a while since I was involved in the discussions about Forrest and FOP, primarily around using Javascript in pages. I'll read the docs docs again.
Peter -- Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
