unless I'm missing something, fontbox dev activity is quite slow
(latest commit was on 2007-10-01, 6 years ago, see ).
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.
2013/1/9 Robert Meyer <rme...@hotmail.co.uk>:
> 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.
> Robert Meyer