On 27.04.2007 12:50:35 Peter wrote: > Thanks Jeremias. Appreciate you take the time to help out. > > > > Is that the (only) way to tell to Batik to do something user specific > > when > > > resolving relative URI's? > > > > This is the wrong place to ask this question. > > I guess the question should have been "is there anyway I can tell fop to > tell batik..." > > I understand FOP and Batik are separate projects, but as a FOP user who > wants to embed svg in fo that should not matter....in a perfect world that > is.
My point is that before you can think about how to pass on a URIResolver to Batik from inside FOP, you have to figure out how you can integrate a URIResolver into Batik in the first place. That's why I gave you the links to Cocoon's Batik block. It can provide you with some ideas. > > > Is there (any other) a way I can have FOP and Batik use the same > > URIResolver > > > interface? > > > > Not at this time. Batik doesn't use URIResolver. You could put in an RFE > > with Batik or try to add direct support for it in Batik's source code. > > > > What if FOP would invoke whatever Batik mechanism available to offer its end > user a URIResolver based approach driven through the FOP API. Assume I would > spend a bit of time trying to implement that, would it stand a chance to get > adopted? Why whouldn't it? The only problem is resources inside the FOP team to review and apply patches in due time. But good contributions are always welcome. I guess in the ideal world one would get Batik to integrate URIResolver functionality directly into the code. But if there's a clean way to do an adapter, that's fine, too. So, my tip is to concentrate on Batik first, and on FOP second. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
