Renan Collin wrote: > there could be a good performance improvement by customizing > FOP, it encodes every single character it found in the XML in > PDF without testing if it has already been encoded, so upon a > large large amount of data, it could be a good solution. > By doing this FOP is 3 times more rapid on 5 to 10 document pages.
Hi Renan: Thanks for your comment. I am working on a font library (derived from FOP 0.20.5) that is being considered for possible integration with FOP. Your comment sounds familiar, but I wanted to make sure I understood exactly what you are saying here. About a week ago, I completed a round of changes to this code that put encoding, character sets, and kerning into more efficient data structures. I have a similar upcoming project that is intended to do the same for the font subsetting logic. IIRC, FOP 0.20.5 uses two HashMap instances to manage the re-encoded subset values, and I am sure we can improve that. My current plan is to use parallel arrays to track the relationship. So my questions: Is your comment directed at subsetted TrueType fonts? Would you please elaborate more on both the problem that you discovered and the solution that you have developed? I would very much like to make sure that we don't miss an opportunity for a 3x performance improvement, and would appreciate any additional information you can provide. Victor Mote --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
