Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 28.10.2008 18:55:39 Adrian Cumiskey wrote:
As you know Jeremias, this AFP library and an AFPRenderer was originally donated to the Apache Foundation in 2006 [1]. It was donated as a prototype AFP library and renderer all mixed up together.

From the work I have done in the Temp_AFPGOCAResources branch, the original AFP code is no longer just a library and renderer but is a much more complete production quality implementation. We now have complex data object creation, native image embedding using object containers, resource group streaming (external), resource leveling and an AFPGraphics2D implementation providing GOCA support. Its offering is now much more substantial and mature and it made sense as I implemented these things that that the AFP library component should become independent and have no knowledge of FOP's AFP rendering component. Having this separation in mind made it conceptually easier for me.

I assumed as much but that wasn't the reason for my post. It was the
lack of discussion before the change.

I accept that I could have raised this as a discussion point before making the change but I didn't want to spend much time/energy on this matter. I can easily move the AFP library from org.apache.fop.afp to somewhere else if you prefer. Suggestions/discussions are welcome.


As you mentioned with the PDF library, maybe there might similarly be a desire for access to the AFP library in XG Commons or elsewhere in the future, this would now be quite straight forward if there was a desire for it. Similarly, other projects which may have no interest in the FOP rendering engine or even XML Graphics are far more likely to make use of this AFP library and may even contribute back :).

Fair enough. The same applies to the RTF library of course, which
actually even has examples of how to create a stand-alone document.

I'm all for improving visibility (if there are actually potential
stand-alone users) but not at the price of making the org.apache.fop
package structure more cluttered and therefore scary to new committers.

I cannot accept this 'more cluttered' argument. I have only added one new package under org.apache.fop. This simply isn't scary. Let me tell you that unfamiliar, complex and interdependent 1-2000+ line procedural style God objects [1] with code copy/pasted/tweaked everywhere scare the hell out of me, not the introduction of one new package. If I was a new contributer/committer this is what would scare the pants off me - actually let me correct myself, I still find this scary :).

Moving everything to Commons is probably no solution either, as Batik is
not interested in either RTF or AFP. It would only blow up the Commons
JAR (which can be an issue for some people). Anyway, things like that
require consensus before a move.

I wasn't suggesting the library is moved to XG Commons, I just wanted to quickly and easily provide flexibility and options for the codebase, making it more accessible for everyone, so contributers/new committers don't need to necessarily get involved with the renderers.

Adrian.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_object

Reply via email to