On 11.07.2008 22:31:03 Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2008, at 10:55, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > ... So the IFRenderer actually doesn't generate any XML itself.  
> > That will be the job of the
> > IFSerializer. So IFRenderer will not subclass AbstractXMLRenderer.
> Apart from that, I also completely forgot about the SVGRenderer  
> (currently still in the sandbox).
> Not sure, but that one could be considered an AbstractXMLRenderer as  
> well.

Actually, I'm planning to write an SVGPainter as one of the first
formats for the new intermediate format. Adrian proposed to use SVG for
the intermediate format itself. I fear it would be too slow and too
complicated to do. But I think it's worthwhile to set those two beside
each other to see if my assumption is correct and if my highly optimized
(and proprietary) approach is really worth it. So if it isn't it will be
easy to switch over and as a nice side-benefit (if nothing else) we get
SVG output support.

That means I'm actually abandoning the idea of having an SVGRenderer at
all, especially since the SVGPainter will be easier to implement than
an SVGRenderer.

> And yes, I agree that it's not really a bad thing to have lots of  
> abstractions, as long as they're actually useful.
> If you have only one class that extends it, and there's no immediate  
> benefit, it's worth to stop and think for a second...

+1 to that.

> Considering the above: even if not useful for the new IF, there does  
> seem to be potential benefit for rendering to XML formats.
> Cheers
> Andreas

BTW, I've started working on the new IF yesterday. I've changed the
IFRenderer to subclass AbstractPathOrientedRenderer in the hopes that
this will work out. I'll start with the IFSerializer (implements
IFPainter, writes the actual IF) and with the SVGPainter.

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to