To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 0.20.5 release
I would agree to Ricardo. We're using tables for inventory lists
containing about 500 pages. The memory situation in that reports is
really critical and we cannot force the users to set filters.
On the other hand: to us it doesn't matter if this enhancement
-product for nearly everyone - I think there's so much
good ideas in it that everyone should be able to use it.
Thomas Sporbeck
Gesendet am: 08.07.2003 11:34:58
Betreff: RE: 0.20.5 release
Hi Fopers,
I can understand your requirements, but I would like to know what memory
Le Mardi, 8 juil 2003, à 10:14 Europe/Zurich, Thomas Sporbeck a écrit :
...It might be a fundamental decision if FOP is a kind of toolbox
for developers or if it should be an out of the box-product for
nearly everyone - I think there's so much good ideas in it that
everyone should be able to
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 14:31, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
I might be wrong, but I think most users of FOP are using it
server-side, where resources (especially memory) are more readily
I don't know about most users, but I am using FOP client-side since I do
not have a server.
Felix
I might be wrong, but I think most users of FOP are using it
server-side, where resources (especially memory) are more readily
available. This might explain your problems, I think little energy has
been spent to optimize FOP's memory requirements.
Yes, I agree.
ali farahani wrote:
It's good to see someone else is using FOP for big reports.
I always wonder what poor souls have to sift through this
huge amound of paper... ;-)
I also using
tables for inventory lists near to 600 pages and my user do not accept
to use filters. This FOP is killing my user
Thomas Sporbeck wrote:
It might be a fundamental decision if FOP is a kind of toolbox for
developers or if it should be an out of the box-product for nearly everyone
It is Open Source. If you find issues and create patches, send
them in. Every contribution is welcome.
J.Pietschmann
, June 19, 2003 3:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 0.20.5 release
I would agree to Ricardo. We're using tables for inventory lists
containing about 500 pages. The memory situation in that reports is
really critical and we cannot force the users to set filters.
On the other hand: to us
Hi,
Sorry to drop in... Just ignore me if you don't see any relevance.
In any case, don't bother answering me.
Considering that tables are currently the only mean to control
pagination, all my documents have a tendency to include lots of tables
(and they all start with a TOC). I believe I'm not
I would agree to Ricardo. We're using tables for inventory lists
containing about 500 pages. The memory situation in that reports is
really critical and we cannot force the users to set filters.
On the other hand: to us it doesn't matter if this enhancement comes
with 0.20.5 or with a later
On 17.06.2003 19:16:23 Christian Geisert wrote:
RC3a seems to be rather stable and the changes since then look
non-critical to me. What about doing the release now (read: next days)
+1
(and maybe 0.20.5a later if we get more hyphenation patterns back)
Don't count on that. :-(
Or should we
Christian Geisert wrote:
RC3a seems to be rather stable and the changes since then look
non-critical to me. What about doing the release now (read: next days)
(and maybe 0.20.5a later if we get more hyphenation patterns back)
Or should we make the changes proposed by Jörg (improved memory
usage
12 matches
Mail list logo
