Ok, that's good to hear. Thanks Luis(!). You'd think after knowing you for over 
a year now I could learn to spell your name correctly ;)

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 09:13:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Fontbox optional dependency
From: lmpmberna...@gmail.com
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org

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. 


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>

                    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?



                      Robert Meyer




Reply via email to