Hi,

I managed to find Chris' original comment:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-general/201310.mbox/%3cblu0-smtp152f66b6dfcfd8695df00eefb...@phx.gbl%3E

I think as you say having two versions makes sense. I would be in favour of 
that as I think FOP should be able to look to the future. Who knows, maybe we 
should just skip 1.6 and head straight to 1.8 ;-)

Regards,

Robert Meyer

> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:17:17 +0200
> Subject: Re: PDFBox
> From: psancho....@gmail.com
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> 
> IIRC, Chris arged that it was hard to upgrade JVM on certain Unix 
> environments.
> I didn't found the discussion, but probably was on this list, 2 or 3
> monthes ago.
> 
> That said, you bring some new arguments that have to be taken into account.
> IMHO, that means that we should provide 2 FOP versions:
> 
>  - fop 1.x, keeping 1.5 Java support,
>  - new fop 2.x, with 1.6 (or earlier?) Java support
> 
> Note that today we provide 2 FOP versions (current -- 1.1, and previous -- 
> 1.0)
> I think there is no reason to keep both current and previous version
> materials on the website. But this will make sense if we have to
> provide wider range platform support. (thought a little out of topic
> here...)
> 
> 2014-06-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Simon Steiner <simonsteiner1...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302
> >
> >
> >
> > I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from
> > AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different
> > fonts.
> >
> >
> >
> > This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does
> > Java 5 still need to be supported?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> pascal
                                          

Reply via email to