Jeremias Maerki wrote:
We still have the two general solutions in the Wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/XmlGraphicsCommonComponents
Proposal 2 is clearly superior to make the dependencies clearer and the make things easier for our users as well as the Batik team.
Chris said he preferred that the transcoders should be writable by both teams which favors Proposal 1. It was also my first idea. But see above.
Yes, like you I wasnt keen for FOP to give up something it used to have control over. However, I rarely contribute any code to the project, so I'm not going to stand in the way of those that make regular contributions.
A proposal 2a (a kind of compromise) would involve putting the basic Graphics2D implementations in the Commons area (no dependencies on Batik). The transcoders themselves would go into Batik. Of course, this also splits this part in two, possibly making it harder for the Batik team when doing bigger improvements. But I think it would address my (and Simon's) particular interest in the Graphics2D implementations. So my question would be what Chris and Thomas (and everyone else, of course) think about this variant.
This is a good compromise indeed.
<snip/>
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
