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 > >