Well, in a certain aspect that is already the case today. I've recently
added to possibility to dynamically add renderer-specific XML handlers.
I need this for the Barcode4J extension for example (directly prividing
EPS and PDF versions of the barcode to the renderer). Furthermore, you
can always subclass and replace a default renderer. I intend to add
dynamic lookup support for that, too. As for other extensions I think it
would be very difficult to guess what people need. Those extension
mechanisms always have their limitations. I expect people to speak up if
they have particular requirements that should be but cannot be fulfilled
using a dynamic plugin. We can then do something about it. So I don't
really understand what you're after. Do you have a concrete conception
how such a thing would look like?

As a related issue: Can we add extension attributes to existing FO
elements? I don't think so. Imagine the possibility to specify on an
external-graphic that the image is to be only referenced in a PostScript
file instead of embedded. Or to specify an SVG to be rendered to a
bitmap instead of the native format because the native format may not
yet be as feature-complete as the bitmap output from Batik. Useful for
very few people but useful nonetheless but this information would
currently also have to be hard-coded into our sources. So if there are
requirements let's specify them and check how we can integrate them into
a good design. I'm very much interested to do that.

On 31.08.2005 00:32:17 Finn Bock wrote:
> >>[Jeremias on <fox:ps-> extensions]
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anybody opposed to my adding this? ...
> >>
> >>Not at all, but I assume that you ask because it can't be added as an 
> >>extension that is completely seperated from FOP. That you have to make 
> >>changes to FOP sources in order to add it.
> > 
> > Yes, that's true.
> > 
> >>And that is IMO a bit of a failure of FOP and the renderer design.
> 
> [Jeremias]
> 
> > Why do you think this is a design failure?
> 
> I would like if anybody, not just FOP comitters, could add such usefull 
> features to FOP. And it is mostly the renderers that can't be extended 
> by dynamicly loaded extensions.
> 
> regards,
> finn



Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to