On 22.02.2005 17:16:56 Glen Mazza wrote: <snip/> > 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.
Actually, that was what I had in mind but obviously haven't explained well enough. > > > 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. Huh? Lots of dependencies on the PDF package in the PDF renderer. > > > 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. Not only an AWT/Swing window. We're also printing, creating bitmap images and we can (via JPS) create PDF and PS files. That's why AWT doesn't really fit what it does. > > 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. That's only one use case. > "Java2DRenderer" sounds like an intermediate renderer > that can be output in several different ways, not just > an AWT window. EXACTLY!!!! That's exactly what is my intention with this proposal. > > - 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. I don't buy that. > Note, of course, these aren't vetoes. A veto would have been easier. :-) I would simply have stopped and said: "Sigh. Again. Ok, next task." Would it be more interesting/agreeable if we would leave the render.awt package and create an AWTRenderer that is optimized for embedding into AWT/Swing applications? The AWTRenderer would subclass the Java2DRenderer in the render.java2d package. Improving embeddability of the AWTRenderer was something I also had in mind. We've had several instances where people had trouble embedding the AWTRenderer in their application or simply use the preview form. Jeremias Maerki
