Re: FOP updated to new Batik API

2003-09-14 Thread Glen Mazza
--- Thomas DeWeese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You say you 'fixed it', you should not > have moved the result stuff into the if. > No, I did not--it was *reformatted* correctly I meant! Glen __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site des

Re: FOP updated to new Batik API

2003-09-14 Thread Thomas DeWeese
Glen Mazza wrote: Patch applied! But please be careful to keep all if-statements within braces--for the second patch, the change at line 500 made the code look somewhat vague as to your intentions (see below--I fixed it though). Ahh yah, sorry for the confusion. You say you 'fixed it', you sho

Re: FOP updated to new Batik API

2003-09-13 Thread Glen Mazza
Patch applied! But please be careful to keep all if-statements within braces--for the second patch, the change at line 500 made the code look somewhat vague as to your intentions (see below--I fixed it though). (...previous { somewhere...) if (alpha != 255) hasMask = true; result[count++]

Re: FOP updated to new Batik API

2003-09-11 Thread Glen Mazza
I'll get to these this weekend. Thanks, Glen --- Thomas DeWeese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Glen, > > Thanks for doing this. > > I just updated my FOP and ran some FO/SVG > through it. > You seem to have gotten most of it, but I noticed > that > you didn't use TextPainterInfo.fillPa

Re: FOP updated to new Batik API

2003-09-10 Thread Thomas DeWeese
Hi Glen, Thanks for doing this. I just updated my FOP and ran some FO/SVG through it. You seem to have gotten most of it, but I noticed that you didn't use TextPainterInfo.fillPaint - instead you continued to use the value of the FOREGROUND attribute. You may not have noticed this becuase I

FOP updated to new Batik API

2003-09-09 Thread Glen Mazza
--- Thomas DeWeese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1.) We do not have plans anytime soon for making a > new > > release of maintenance--so, if I made the change, > the > > new pdftranscoder.jar could be based only on a > nightly > > build--is that OK with you? > >I think that would be fine. >