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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:40:05 -0600 > Subject: Re: Fontbox optional dependency > To: [email protected] > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Robert Meyer <[email protected]>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 > > > >
