Hi Glenn,

Firstly, although this is loosely related, can you try to keep the emails
in the thread relevant, this is going to be a verbose thread so we don't
want to add to the confusion. As for the public API, I don't believe
IFPainter is part of the public API, but I'm not sure who does and doesn't
agree. I wrote that wiki page in hope that we'd come to some consensus, but
it just moved from the fore of conversation, looks like we're back there.

Mehdi

On 2 April 2012 16:24, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Jeremias Maerki <d...@jeremias-maerki.ch
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> There must be a really, really good reason to change the frontmost
>>> public API of FOP in a backwards-incompatible way. Changing the API will
>>> cause considerable work for all users when they upgrade. We must not do
>>> that on a whim.
>>>
>>
>> Would you consider a minor, but substantive technical change to the IF
>> APIs, specifically, to IFPainter, to require a revision of the major
>> version? I ask this because one of the arguments to IFPainter.drawText()
>> has been changed from int[] to int[][] in the recent complex scripts merge.
>>
>> In other words, are the IF public APIs to be considered part of the
>> formal public FOP API that is subject to version control rules?
>>
>> Do we have a precise list of which APIs are (or should be) subject to
>> such rules?
>>
>
> I found http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/trunk/embedding.html#API
>
> But I see this doesn't list IFPainter, even though
> IFDocumentHandler.startPageContent() returns an IFPainter.
>
> Also, I should mention that the CS patch made two minor, but substantive
> changes to the IF schema (and thus output format). Should changes to the IF
> schema also be subject to public version control rules?
>
>

Reply via email to