--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now that we've got someone who will work on the AWT > Renderer I'd like to > know if someone is against renaming the AWT Renderer > to Java2D Renderer.
"AWT Renderer" has a rich history within FOP, it's a popular renderer, and I have not heard of any complaints or confusion from the user community about its naming. Its output is that neat-looking AWT/Swing window, so it's not that incorrect a name. The internal technology we use to generate said window is IMO less important than what the user sees. > The API in use is actually the Java2D API [1], > although most of the > classes had their origin within AWT (and are still > in there). Mein Freund, even the Java2D library itself (from the link you gave below) uses ".awt." in their package names and not ".java2D.". Why should we use .java2D. in our package names when even Java2D itself doesn't/won't? Also, using this logic, shouldn't we rename the (future) TIFF Renderer--which Oleg says will descend from AWTRenderer--and current SVG Renderers to Java2DRenderer as well? Don't they use Java2D as well? Now, if you want to create a Java2DRenderer as a abstract base class for Renderers utilizing it--AWTRenderer, AWTPrintRenderer, SVGRenderer, TIFFRenderer, etc., that would appear to make a lot more sense. Consider that before you tie "Java2DRenderer" specifically with our AWTRenderer. > AWT is > actually the windowing toolkit which is something > that's not used inside > the renderer. True, but PDF is not used within the PDF Renderer. Text codes "/0 /0 /a /c" etc. etc. are instead. To a degree, using this logic here would then call for us renaming PDF Renderer to BinaryOutputCodesRenderer. > Only when the Java2D renderer is > embedded inside a GUI > application AWT (or rather Swing or SWT) are coming > into use. Yes, so far we have been naming our renderers on the final output that the user sees (here, an AWT/Swing window), not the internal technology used in generating that output. > And the > preview window actually uses Swing, not AWT. > But Swing sits on top of AWT, no? Also, I suspect there are AWT-specific packages within the AWTRenderer anyway (such as the EventHandlers and EventListeners like java.awt.event.ActionEvent). AWTRenderer appears more accurate overall then SwingRenderer, and has the added benefit of not sounding as silly. ;) > So here are the proposed changes: > > - Package org.apache.fop.render.awt becomes > org.apache.fop.render.java2d > -0.5, because java2d itself uses "awt" in its package name, and we use (or will use) java2d for more than the AWTRenderer. It's more consistent as-is. Also, "AWTRenderer" gives the user a better mental model of what the output of this type is -- and AWT/Swing Window with a document in the middle. "Java2DRenderer" sounds like an intermediate renderer that can be output in several different ways, not just an AWT window. > - AWTRenderer.java becomes Java2DRenderer.java > (AWT*.java -> > Java2D*.java) > -0.5, because, again, other renderers use or may use Java2D. And we can't all be renaming our renderers BinaryOutputCodesRenderer.java and Java2DRenderer.java. Note, of course, these aren't vetoes. Regards, Glen
