On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:29:03AM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > The "API discussion" thread around 2005-08-03 trailed off. I'd like to > revive it again because I feel that is something that needs to be done. > > Anybody against moving the CLI to a org.apache.fop.cli package? > > The only issue I see when doing this is that FOP's API then still > resides in the org.apache.fop.apps package which is sort of unintuitive > then. "apps" would suggest a command-line application IMO but we're then > only talking about an API. In the end it comes back to the discussion > about the API. Is the API ok like it is? Is it in the right package? > > We've already broken API compatibility so changing packages (I'm > thinking think about org.apach.fop, removing "apps") shouldn't be a big > deal before the first release. > > Anybody against my adding support for selecting the renderer by the use > of the MIME type (in addition to the current integer constants) and > adding a renderer discovery (similar to FOP extensions and what I > recently added for the XMLHandlerRegistry)? > > On the other side, maybe we should really take the time to write up a > short specification for the API and to have that voted on. After all, > this is the main entry point into FOP. If anybody could take the lead on > this, I'd be very grateful as I have my hands full enough already. I can > still do it myself, if really nobody can be found to do it. But I'd > really not do all that stuff in a "lonely rider" fashion.
I am afraid I have no strong feelings about this issue. So I'll go with your "lonely rider" stuff or what you and Manuel come up with. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
