On 21.04.2006 19:42:48 Will Peterson wrote:
> I'm a little confused on the subversion FOP vs. the binary download.
> - The .92 beta binary uses 'FopFactory' to create a Fop instance (which
> I can't get to work anyway, which is why I tried the subversion)
> - The subversion uses the 'new Fop' object constructor (no FopFactory)

What URL did you use to get the source code? You need to use
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk if you want the
latest sources.

> - The .92 beta binary includes one jar file in the build directory
> - The subversion includes 5 (after built)
> Can some one please clarify if they know why these are different.

The binary distribution is mostly for unexperienced people who simply
want to use the basic FOP functionality. So they only need fop.jar (plus
the stuff in "lib"). But the normal build also produces additional JARs,
like the Transcoder package for Batik, a demo web app etc. These are
only goodies.

> I thought the binary was just a snapshot of the subversion.

Not 100%, no.

> I would like to use the beta release, but I can't get it working
> because calling FopFactory.newInstance() gets a noClassDef error (I'm
> assuming because a dependancy is missing),

Sounds more like you have an old FOP JAR in the classpath somehow.
FopFactory is definitely in the fop.jar from the binary distribution.

> the subversion stuff works
> but I kinda wonder why I need all the extra jar files
> (fop-transcoder-allinone.jar, fop-sandbox.jar, fop-hyph.jar,
> fop-transcoder.jar) ... without them fop will not work.

You don't need any of those. These are just goodies.

> Plus, I want to be prepared for the final release.
> Thanks in advance for any help.
> -Will

Jeremias Maerki

  • SVN vs. BIN Will Peterson
    • Re: SVN vs. BIN Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to