I'll get this added as a patch (via Bugzilla as Chris suggested). The
developer forum can then decide if this is something you wish to take
forward (perhaps someone can get feedback from the user community as to
whether it would be desirable). It has saved us a huge amount of effort,
previously we had to define duplicate print templates (one for PDF and the
other for mainframe AFP/IPDS) - so as one member of that community I can
vouch for its desirability. Also if you search the web you will see that
many commercial products will convert AFP/IPDS to PDF or vice versa so the
demand is certainly there and the addition of this capability is likely to
increase the user base.

I appreciate that an additional renderer adds an overhead, hence offering my
services to support it. It has taken a lot of pressure from myself to get
agreement by my company to release to ASF - they are likely to be reluctant
to have the code released elsewhere (i.e. on a resource page) - we have a
very sensitive legal department! 

Regards, Pete.

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 August 2004 14:55
Subject: RE: AFP Renderer

My primary goal is not to "get this committed."  But
if you have code you wish to donate to the ASF, just
do so via Bugzilla.  It doesn't matter which
format--it is the logic in the code that is being
sought.  No guarantees, however, as to it ever getting
committed into FOP, because we don't have significant
demand for it, and as Jeremias said, there is a time
factor involved with maintaining renderers.  There is
also the issue of the damage done to the FOP's
reputation as a whole should it ship with renderers
that operate only partially or incorrectly.

Today is the first I've ever heard of AFP, and I've
been on the project for eighteen months, so it has to
be given lower priority compared to the other output
types that we *do* get demand for--PDF, PS, PCL, and
AWT.  And so we'll need to hear substantive demand
from the user community first--else it should remain
external (perhaps added to our resource page, as we
currently do in such cases) to the project.


--- "Townsend, Pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you let me know whether it is best being
> submitted in either 0.20.5 or
> 1.0 format and point me in the right direction to
> get this committed. As
> mentioned previously I'm happy to act as a
> contributor in this respect.
> Cheers, Pete.

This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain privileged and/or confidential 
information. If you are not the intended recipient please do not disclose, copy, 
distribute, disseminate or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received 
this message in error please reply and tell us and then delete it. Should you wish to 
communicate with us by e-mail we cannot guarantee the security of any data outside our 
own computer systems. For the protection of Legal & General's systems and staff, 
incoming emails will be automatically scanned.

Any information contained in this message may be subject to applicable terms and 
conditions and must not be construed as giving investment advice within or outside the 
United Kingdom.

Legal & General Group PLC, Temple Court, 11 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4N 4TP. 
Registered in England no: 1417162

Legal & General Group Plc is a holding company, subsidiary undertakings of which are 
fully authorised as appropriate under the Financial Services and Markets Act in 
respect of their investment activities in the UK.

Reply via email to