+1

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Robert Meyer <rme...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> 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