We can do it this way. But on second thought, I think
it would be better for Renaud to move it in as
AWTRenderer, and slowly start factoring out more and
more while things are getting settled. BTW, this will
take some time to do anyway--it isn't easy because the
renderers are so different between
Victor,
thanks for your explanations. i'll give a look into FOray when i'll
feel more confident about the layout process.
cheers, Renaud
Renaud Richardet wrote:
> Victor,
> in [1] you talked about dealing with the positioning of areas
> during the AreaTree building. could you point me to the
> classes in FOray that handle that logic?
...
> [1]
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
l.apache.org&msgNo=10534
Hi
Given the new layout I don't even need to prepare anything. It would
only complicate things. Just rename the AWTRenderer to Java2DRenderer,
move it to the new location, then create an empty subclass of
Java2DRenderer called AWTRenderer and move any AWT-dependant code to
that subclass.
On 22.02.200
On 22.02.2005 22:35:15 Renaud Richardet wrote:
> > So far, I can only say that there's so mandatory reason for that change.
> > It would certainly make the renderers simpler but there might be
> > problems in other areas. The real downside is when you have to do the
> > same calculations in every
Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks good! Now whether you wish to do this before or
> after Renaud moves the logic over is up to you two.
> There's advantages/disadvantages to either method.
yes, that looks good!
Jeremias, if it's ok for the team, i would apreciate if you would do
the
hello Jeremias
merci for the informations.
> I wondered about that, too:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=984481
interesting!
Victor,
in [1] you talked about dealing with the positioning of areas during
the AreaTree building. could you point me to the clas
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Deal. It seems like we want the same things but
> didn't understand each
> other. I hope we do now.
>
> I've documented all this in a Wiki page:
> http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FopAndJava2D
>
Looks good! Now whether you wish to do this
Salut Renaud
I wondered about that, too:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=984481
So far, I can only say that there's so mandatory reason for that change.
It would certainly make the renderers simpler but there might be
problems in other areas. The real downside
bonjour fop-dev's
i've been walking through the rendering process. if i understand it
rightly, an area doesn't records it's absolute position. therefore, we
have to pass the currentIPPosition, currentBPPosition all along during
the rendering process to figure out where to position an area.
what i
Deal. It seems like we want the same things but didn't understand each
other. I hope we do now.
I've documented all this in a Wiki page:
http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FopAndJava2D
You said that we name our renderer on the final output the user sees.
So I also added a print and bitmap pac
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A veto would have been easier. :-) I would simply
> have stopped and said:
> "Sigh. Again. Ok, next task."
>
Yes, but the change proposed simply doesn't rise to
the level of a veto.
> Would it be more interesting/agreeable if we would
> leave t
On 22.02.2005 17:16:56 Glen Mazza wrote:
> Now, if you want to create a Java2DRenderer as a
> abstract base class for Renderers utilizing
> it--AWTRenderer, AWTPrintRenderer, SVGRenderer,
> TIFFRenderer, etc., that would appear to make a lot
> more sense. Consider that before you tie
> "Java2DRe
On Feb 22, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now that we've got someone who will work on the AWT
Renderer I'd like to
know if someone is against renaming the AWT Renderer
to Java2D Renderer.
"AWT Renderer" has a rich history within FOP, it's a
popula
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now that we've got someone who will work on the AWT
> Renderer I'd like to
> know if someone is against renaming the AWT Renderer
> to Java2D Renderer.
"AWT Renderer" has a rich history within FOP, it's a
popular renderer, and I have not heard of
On Feb 21, 2005, at 11:03 PM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
So here are the proposed changes:
- Package org.apache.fop.render.awt becomes
org.apache.fop.render.java2d
- AWTRenderer.java becomes Java2DRenderer.java (AWT*.java ->
Java2D*.java)
I think the viewer subpackage can stay as is under the renamed
On 22.02.2005 12:43:56 Renaud Richardet wrote:
> Mark, just let me know when you'll start to work on it.
> Clay, sorry for not making clear that i needed the maintenance code
> for reference.
> Jeremias, thanks for the pointer
>
> i'm not sure about the following. please correct me if i'm wrong:
Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
Now that we've got someone who will work on the AWT Renderer I'd like to
know if someone is against renaming the AWT Renderer to Java2D Renderer.
[..]
Any objections?
Not at all.
Christian
Mark, just let me know when you'll start to work on it.
Clay, sorry for not making clear that i needed the maintenance code
for reference.
Jeremias, thanks for the pointer
i'm not sure about the following. please correct me if i'm wrong:
the (currently named) AWTRenderer allows 3 different kinds
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
So here are the proposed changes:
- Package org.apache.fop.render.awt becomes org.apache.fop.render.java2d
- AWTRenderer.java becomes Java2DRenderer.java (AWT*.java ->
Java2D*.java)
I think the viewer subpackage can stay as is under the renamed package.
Any objections?
None
20 matches
Mail list logo