Hi, unless I'm missing something, fontbox dev activity is quite slow (latest commit was on 2007-10-01, 6 years ago, see [1]). IMHO, introducing a dependency on such project witch will need some improvement is not a good thing, unless we can ensure that submitting patches to it will be applied on demand.
[1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/fontbox/stats/scm?repo=CVSRepository&dates=2007-01-10+to+2013-01-10 2013/1/9 Robert Meyer <[email protected]>: > Hi All, > > Unless someone else has been developing this in secret, I am planning to > make a start on adding support for OTF CFF (Open Type - Compact Font > Format). There are two choices I can see which are available and would like > to ask for your opinion. These are: > > 1) Using the implementation from fontbox and write adapter classes to allow > it to work with FOP. > 2) Write a dedicated FOP implementation. > > There are pro's and con's to each. Firstly, using fontbox will create > another dependency to FOP which is generally never a good thing. It will > also means if there is a problem with their implementation, we have to rely > upon them to commit the patch (either written by us or by themselves). I > don't know what their uptake is on committing patches, but unlike FOP the > control would be taken out of our hands. > > Saying this however, using their implementation will cut the development > time as the majority of work will already have been done. There is also the > advantage that their implementation will have been around for a while and > will have benefited from subsequent use and have ironed out any bugs. > > If you have any other comments for or against each option please post them. > > Regards, > > Robert Meyer -- pascal
