On 18/08/07, Vincent Hennebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Thanks for chiming in! That's exactly the comment I was needing :-)
>
> Andreas L Delmelle a écrit :
> > On Aug 17, 2007, at 18:33, Adrian Cumiskey wrote:
> >
> > Hi Adrian,
> >
> >> Please review/try out the patch I just submitted
> >> (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43156) and let me
> >> know if it fixes the MethodNotFoundError(s) on your ant junit target
> >> on the fop-0_94 branch when using jdk1.3.
> >
> > Although the patch solves this particular problem, I'm still wondering
> > why we should alter our codebase to ensure compatibility with buggy JDK
> > 1.3 implementations.
> >
> > I remember moving ColumnNumberPropertyMaker myself as an inner class,
> > since it's small, does not apply to anything other than table-related
> > FOs and so the related methods in the fo.flow package didn't have to
> > become part of the public API (getCurrentColumnIndex() and the like).
>
> Yes that striked my eye and I was wondering if that was a good thing.
> Apparently not.
>
> However, this doesn't mean that the patch is useless. I'll apply it to
> the 0.94 branch to be able to produce a 1.3 build. I won't merge it into
> the Trunk since we will very probably drop 1.3 support after the release
> and the code is cleaner as is.
>
> So, many thanks Adrian for your patch. The last remaining problem is
> a testcase about PDF encoding which doesn't pass (nothing excepted the
> starting "%PDF-1.4" string is output), but since I get a visually normal
> result when running it by hand I'll disable it in the branch.

> Apparently, either this is the first time anyone even tried building the

> > trunk code with JDK 1.3 or some have already done that and didn't run
> > into trouble, else we would have heard about this sooner.
> >
> > Maybe it's OK to leave this patch in existence for those foppers that
> > need 1.3 compatibility, instead of applying it to the trunk.
> >
> > No veto, just something to think about. I mean, it's not as if
> > discontinuing support for 1.3 is not the intention in the long run,
> so...
>
> I'll guess you'll be happy with my proposal? ;-)
>
> Thanks everyone,
> Vincent
>
>

Reply via email to