As an active FOP user I have been monitoring the fop-dev list for the last 2
years or so.
The recent discussion between Victor and Peter and Jrg's comment below seem
to highlight a difference in opinion where the project is headed.
Based on the various discussions on this list and the web site
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25272.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
[Glen Mazza]
It's been in that location for at least several
months--it's just that we never saw it because it was
autogenerated and never checked into CVS. (As for its
location--it is used by the FO classes and it also has
some FO constants and other enumerations in there, so
it is OK remaining
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
With all due respect, I think you're overreacting here. Maybe you already
know this yourself, and have changed your mind about the
'adios'... Anyway,
I have been following the discussions between Peter and yourself
(--at least
the recent ones, which may be exactly
-Original Message-
From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
snip /
The gist of this section seems to be ... that you don't know enough to
comment on what is going on. Duly noted.
Not quite. More like: I *think* I don't know enough (maybe _that_ is
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 17.12.2003 15:25:37 Victor Mote wrote:
I would rather go away than to be the guy that everyone wishes would
go away.
Ok, Victor, until that happens I'd like you to stay. I don't see *any*
indication that *anyone* wishes that *anybody* should go away. Well, our
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Which is done by {which parser?}
Xerces 2.3.4, but it doesn't matter. The problem are the generated
Java objects.
80k? For how many fo:* approx. in the file?
8 objects. A table with some twenty odd columns and 800+ rows.
A TableCell, a Block and a FOText per cell.
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:
(does Jrg work?),
Not in the archive.
I know you are a long-time advocate of sticking with the codebase, and
have been very critical of my approach, so I don't want to draw any
unwarranted conclusions here. Does the above mean that you are
interested
gmazza 2003/12/18 15:37:45
Added: src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/properties Constants.java
Removed: src/java/org/apache/fop/fo Constants.java
Log:
Place Constants.java file in wrong location.
Revision ChangesPath
1.1
gmazza 2003/12/18 17:08:42
Modified:src/documentation/content/xdocs book.xml team.xml
Log:
Updates to team page.
Revision ChangesPath
1.28 +2 -2 xml-fop/src/documentation/content/xdocs/book.xml
Index: book.xml
--- Finn Bock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Peter was refering to the fact that you
placed the file in the
src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/
directory, but it used to be in the
org.apache.fop.fo.properties.
package. Indeed, the package statement in the
Constants still reads
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25272.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Glen Mazza wrote:
There's about 10-15 differences between Alt-Design and
HEAD (my unresearched guess), and getting us on to INT
constants--the no-brainer--removes one of them. Peter
hopefully will start to see more of the theory of
Alt-Design in HEAD, if not exactly the same
implementation (e.g.,
13 matches
Mail list logo
