Glen, 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 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Thanks, Glen --- "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.
