--- 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

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

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

Note, of course, these aren't vetoes.


Reply via email to