>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" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ignore my last message. Chris got there first. > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > > 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 >
