On 05/03/2012 16:18, mehdi houshmand wrote:
I agree that there may be some good project ideas in the bug list, but I
don't think the one Alex highlighted is a good one. Changing the layout
algorithm is a major undertaking, probably several man years :) We need
to find something small and well defined for a GSoC project, something
that we know can be completed in 2-3 months.
Yeah that's a fair point, I think this may be a textbook case of
Freudian projection, so my apologies if those weren't your intentions
The problem is, I don't have a great deal of experience in the Layout
Engine and I really have no grounds to put a proposal together. I've
put forward the projects that I know about and think are interesting.
If you want to put a project proposal forward please do, if no one
else steps forward as a mentor and an applicant takes an interest,
I'll make the effort to learn the code.
On 5 March 2012 15:48, Alexios Giotis<alex.gio...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think that Glenn's idea is that bad. FOP's open bugzilla issues are not
only bugs, they also show what are the areas that FOP needs to be improved. If
we start from the beginning, then
| 1063|New|Nor|2001-03-21|fop does not handle large fo files
is a real, very interesting issue and the solution is not to increase the Java
heap size. There are workarounds such as caching objects but a good solution
might be deeper in FOP's layout engine. What about checking or implementing
Donald Knuth's first-fit or best-fit algorithms ? In theory, it would allow to
free FO tree and layout manager objects after the end of every page.
There was a recent discussion about this, see
Of course there will be drawbacks, FOP is complex (more complex than it should
be in my opinion, cleanup / modularization would help) and this is not a simple
On Mar 5, 2012, at 4:49 PM, mehdi houshmand wrote:
Haha, if only it were that simple... The projects have to be
interesting and fulfilling and at least bordering on fun. They also
have to be an opportunity to learn and encourage opensource
development. There's little fun to be had fixing bugs hidden in the
depths of FOPs fairly difficult to delve-in code base, also - probably
more importantly - I can't imagine it would serve as encouragement.
On 5 March 2012 14:36, Glenn Adams<gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
I would suggest whittling down the fop bug list, starting from the
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:35 AM, mehdi houshmand<med1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because of the overwhelming popularity of this idea, I've created a
link on the Wiki
the GSoC proposals.
On a serious note, this is literally work for free. Google pays the
bills and I'm happy to mentor any applicants and do the admin, all you
have to do is provide ideas for projects. If you have a wish list or a
list of TODOs that you think a newbie could do for a summer project (I
do appreciate that's quite a big caveat), now's your opportunity.
On 1 March 2012 16:26, mehdi houshmand<med1...@gmail.com> wrote:
The GSoC doesn't relate directly to the ASF or FOP directly, however,
putting a few FOP projects as proposals would be a good way to get
some new interest into the project. I think it would be good for us as
we benefit from any work done, and it helps whomever does the work
learn the various skills that we as a community can impart upon them.
I've included a link to the GSoC below, but if you do some research,
there's plenty of information out there.
On 1 March 2012 16:13, Glenn Adams<gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
could you provide a link to the "Google Summer of Code Project"? how
relate to ASF and FOP activities?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:50 AM, mehdi houshmand<med1...@gmail.com>
We're thinking of submitting a proposal or two to the Google Summer of
Code project and wanted to get some input from the community on ideas.
Once we've got a few proposals I'll create a wiki page and put all the
ideas on there, but for now I just wanted to gauge interest.
In terms of mentoring, I'm happy to be a mentor and I've registered as
one and if any other committers fancy the job, do register, the more
the merrier. The deadline is 9th March, so that doesn't give us long
to bounce around ideas, but here are a few I was thinking:
- There have been recent discussions between Jeremias, myself and
others about extracting the Fonts packages into their own library. I
think this would be a great idea for a project because essentially it
only involves a few, well defined specifications (TTF, Type1 etc) and
doesn't expose the person to too much complexity. The way I'd suggest
this to be done, is by re-writing rather than porting, that way it
gives the person much more flexibility and also the current code would
give them good tips and tricks on how to deal with parsing fonts.
- TTF in AFP. I know we still have the TrueTypeInPostScript branch
flying around, and however much I'd like to fob that onto someone
else, I don't think it's fair to do so. I have no idea how long this
project would take, but I think FOP could really benefit from it.
Currently we're forcing users to use AFP fonts for AFP documents, a
lot of which are archaic and use EBCDIC, for those of you who haven't
been exposed to EBCDIC, count yourself lucky.
There may be something to do with PCL?? I'm not at all familiar with
the format, but I do remember discussions about upgrading to a newer
PCL standard? I'd be happy to acquaint myself with the format if
there's interest in the idea.
Hopefully we can get a proposal together in time.