Hi Rob,
On 10/01/2013 12:07, Robert Meyer wrote:
Hi all,
I posted a message yesterday about getting opinions on either adding a
dependency to fontbox to use their implementation or write our own for
OTF CFF support. I personally think that using fontbox would be the
better option due to:
1) Re-use of code rather than re-writing
2) Stability and subsequent bugfixes since the time it was released.
3) Will cut development time for implementing this feature.
There is room for discussion about making the new dependency optional
i.e. FOP working without the jar and only being called if a CFF font
is used. At this stage though the dependency issue needs to be voted
on. I would therefore like to start a vote.
My suggestion would be to make Fontbox an optional dependency and to
output a warning message along the lines of: "For OTF CFF support please
add FontBox to the classpath" in the event a user tries to use an OTF
CFF Font and doesn't have FontBox in the classpath. For all other font
types, FOP should work as normal.
As a contributor, my vote will not count toward the result, therefore
the decision is left up to the rest of you.
+1 from me.
Regards,
Robert Meyer
Thanks,
Chris
