>From my limited experience posting to PDFBox, they process patches pretty
quickly and post feedback where appropriate promptly too. Dunno if that
eases your concerns Pascal, but that's my 2 cents worth
On Jan 10, 2013 11:02 AM, "Robert Meyer" <rme...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Ignore my last message. Chris got there first.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: rme...@hotmail.co.uk
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> Subject: RE: OTF CFF Implementation
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:01:00 +0000
>
> Hi Pascal,
>
> My apologies as I should have provided the link [1]. I am guessing that
> the sourceforge project you linked to is the original version before it was
> merged with pdfbox.
>
> The project is quite active and had its last patch submitted yesterday.
> There is also a PMC member on the project who is also a FOP committer
> (Jeremias), but I am sure the other committers are fairly active.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert
>
> [1] http://pdfbox.apache.org/dependencies.html
>
> > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:12:43 +0100
> > Subject: Re: OTF CFF Implementation
> > From: psancho....@gmail.com
> > To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> >
> > 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 <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.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Robert Meyer
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > pascal
>

Reply via email to