OK, I think the problem was caused by the fop-pdf-images.jar being in the
classpath in my machine. I will remove the pdfbox jar.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Robert Meyer <rme...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Lewis,
>
> Thanks for doing this. I really should have done this myself but will try
> and ease my way into committing by doing a few small patches first and
> working my way up.
>
> I checked out the latest from trunk and can see that the pdfbox jar in
> there. However, if I remove it from the lib directory, compile and run the
> unit tests it seems to work fine? What errors are you getting without the
> pdfbox jar in place? I also tried running an example but again it worked
> without the jar. Fontbox should only be an optional dependency i.e. needs
> it to compile, but doesn't have to be there to run.
>
> Robert
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 00:20:34 +0100
> From: lmpmberna...@gmail.com
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
> Subject: Re: Fontbox optional dependency
>
>
> I applied the OTF patch (FOP-2252) since it is a large patch and if it
> goes stale it will be very difficult to apply. However, I realized after I
> applied it that it introduces a dependency on pdfbox. Because of this I
> committed the pdfbox jar or otherwise the unit tests would fail. More than
> that, even a simple FOP hello world cannot be run without the pdfbox jar.
> Unfortunately I had the pdfbox jar in my lib directory and that is why I
> missed the dependency before I committed the patch.
>
> Since what Robert  had put forward was a dependency on fontbox only, not
> on pdfbox, I think we need to discuss what to do. Should I revert the
> commit? That is my inclination but I want to know what others think before
> I do it.
>
> On 5/29/13 4:55 PM, Robert Meyer wrote:
>
> Sorry I worded that incorrectly. The changes I'm making to fontbox will be
> applied to their project, though this is dependant on their committers. I
> have already had one patch applied, so hopefully it shouldn't be a problem
> with the other which I plan to put forward soon. As such, we will just be
> referencing an existing compiled version of their project.
>
>  ------------------------------
> From: gl...@skynav.com
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:40:05 -0600
> Subject: Re: Fontbox optional dependency
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Robert Meyer <rme...@hotmail.co.uk>wrote:
>
>  Hi All,
>
> Quick question related to this fontbox optional dependency being added for
> OTF CFF. I am guessing that to allow this to work, FOP will require the
> fontbox jar to be compiled, but optional when run? If the user does not
> have fontbox when running, an error is shown if a reference is made to a
> CFF font. This is just to confirm that I don't need to make the OTF CFF
> code external to FOP as a separate jar plugin so that FOP can be compiled
> without it.
>
>
>  When you say "require the fontbox jar to be compiled", do you mean just
> reference an existing, released version of fontbox's JAR artifact? Or are
> you referring to a forked version with FOP mods?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert Meyer
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to