+1 from me to adding FontBox support and making it optional as Chris recommends.
FOP functionality should not change if OTF CFF Font is not requested. Of course, there may be other Font areas where FOP can use FontBox's help, and that'll come in the course of time. Clay Leeds ~ the.webmaes...@gmail.com On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:36 AM, Chris Bowditch <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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
