Hi, sorry for the long time between replies, I'm just having
To start an implementation of this now...

This is what I need to do, and please tell me if I'm missing anything:

   We need my server side java app, which is derived off of SVGConverter
In the org.apache.batik.apps.rasterizer path, to output svg files in
.png, .jpg, and .pdf format.  Up until now, we've been doing png and jpg
just fine.

   So, now we have to support PDF output, through my own app.  From what
I've surmised by looking at and debugging the batik rasterizer source
code,
The pdf transcoder is retrieved dynamically through class.forName, which
Is good.  However, when I put the pdf transcoder from FOP (and necessary
Support files) in the class path, the rasterizer still chokes and throws
A class not found exception.  (by the way, we've been using batik-1.1.1,
but
I get the same problem with batik-1.5)

   So, my questions are these:

   1) Am I missing something by not being able to get the batik code to 
        find the pdf transcoder just by adding the fop jar file to the
class
        path?  The class loader should find it right?  I've tried this
against
        fop 0.20.1 and 0.20.3 with the same problems.

   2) Do I need to get the latest version of source from the batik and
        fop cvs tree rather than batik-1.1.1 or batik-1.5 to get this
PDF
        transcoder to work using my own app using SVGConverter?

Thanks,
Joe


-----Original Message-----
From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 12:56 AM
To: Batik Users
Subject: Re: Batik, FOP, and PDF

Hi,

The real problem here is that the api with batik has been changing. The 
batik.jar that comes with FOP is from the build-all target and when that

was done depends on what version of FOP you are using.
FOP uses a number of internal api's which have been subject to change
from 
version 1.0 -> now.
We at FOP are trying to keep the version of batik to the latest offical 
release but this isn't always practical.

Unfortunately the best I can offer at the moment is to wait for a
release 
of FOP after the final batik 1.5 release.

Keiron.

On 2002.03.14 23:43 Joe Mihalich wrote:
> 
>             Hello,
> 
>                I have a few questions regarding the relationship
between
> FOP and Batik.
>             This may be a message for the FOP list, but I'll try here
> first.
> 
>                From what I understand from reading docs on the xml
> apache web site,
>             FOP has "extended" batik in some fashion and added a PDF
> transcoder
>             Along with a few other classes.
> 
>                Here are my questions:
> 
> 1)       when you download the FOP binaries, you get most of the batik
> binaries
> in a batik.jar file.  However, there is a new class in
> org.apache.batik.gvt
> called GraphicsNodeRendereContext.  This file does not show up in the
> batik 1.5 beta download.  Wouldn't the FOP developers have checked
these
> files into the batik cvs tree in the gvt project?
> 
> 
> 2)       I'm confused in that, it seems the only way to convert SVG
> files to PDF files
> is to download the FOP library and run the rasterizer from the FOP
> batik.jar
> and point the class path to the fop.jar and crimson-parser.jar files.
> It seems
> logical, that at some point here, I should be able to download the
> batik-1.x
> binary, and the FOP 0.x binary, and run the rasterizer from the batik
> downloads
> jar file.  That would assume that the batik engine is looking for
> transcoder classes
> dynamically, without import statements.
> 
> It just seems weird that I have to do one of the following to support
> the file formats
> we need:
> 
> a) use the batik binaries to convert svg to png, and jpg's.  and use
the
> separate
>     fop library for converting svg to pdf.  Not that two VM's would be
> needed since
>     the batik binaries are different
> 
> b) use the FOP binaries to do all conversion from svg to png,jpg, pdf.
> Note that this is
>     risky as well in it's current phase because, I don't see any
> indication of what "version"
>     of batik the fop binaries are based on.
> 
> 
>             Any clarification would be appreciated.
> 
>             Thanks,
>             Joe

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to