Re: marketing Defoe (was: another nose for the grindstone)
Peter, it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting... On 17.01.2005 06:01:27 Peter B. West wrote: Mark, Project Defoe http://defoe.sourceforge.net/, formerly Fop alt-design, is focussed on a Java 2D renderer, robust and complete. By complete I mean, in particular, able to correctly handle last-page, keeps, table auto-layout and large files. Don't make the mistake of thinking that, because FOP has been around for a long time, it is only the place to be for open source XSL-FO development. Rather, ask why, if it has been around for such a long time, these problems haven't been solved. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all software problems are solved by simply applying more resources. Having said that, let me add that the project seems to have found its shepherd, in the form of Finn Bock. Many of the long-standing innovations of alt-design in the property handling have at last been introduced by Finn, who has the happy knack of being able to completely rewrite large chunks of FOP by applying a wide-ranging but complete set of changes. He may well solve FOP's remaining critical problems in the same way. The point is, that FOP needs a major design overhaul. I'm doing that at Defoe, and Finn is doing it, piecemeal, at FOP. His focus though is not on Java 2D, and getting a complete and robust implementation of the 2D renderer will depend on Finn's new design. If you want to know more about where FOP is headed, ask Finn. Defoe is Java 5.0 based. If that doesn't work for you, don't bother with Defoe. Otherwise, if you are interested in avenues for your XSL-FO development efforts, I am happy to talk to you. Jeremias Maerki
Re: marketing Defoe
Jeremias, Do you disagree with the assessment? Clearly people might, but I didn't say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of FOP. If it is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of play? Finn has already talked about a radically different approach in order to solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present you with a swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future. I just hope he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot. One of its underlying features will be what is effectively a stream parsing mechanism. It's acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there being no other design contenders, will be particularly galling for me, in light of the the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it, as I still do. I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues. Peter Jeremias Maerki wrote: Peter, it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting...
Re: marketing Defoe
Peter, this is not about the question whether I disagree with the assessment. You might be right, you might be wrong. I can't tell, yet, because I'm still working my way into the new layout engine. My reaction was triggered by the way you said these things, not by any technical statement. But as I said, I may be overreacting and I may not have filtered everything through all the is-written and is-in-foreign-language filters. On 17.01.2005 12:07:47 Peter B. West wrote: Jeremias, Do you disagree with the assessment? Clearly people might, but I didn't say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of FOP. If it is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of play? Finn has already talked about a radically different approach in order to solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present you with a swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future. I just hope he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot. One of its underlying features will be what is effectively a stream parsing mechanism. It's acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there being no other design contenders, will be particularly galling for me, in light of the the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it, as I still do. I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues. Peter Jeremias Maerki wrote: Peter, it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting... Jeremias Maerki
Re: marketing Defoe
Peter, FWIW, I was shocked by the tone of your statement as well. Not so much by any misleading or such. Rather, it was more in the way that I'm shocked by the manner that, in the US companies can discuss differences with other products in their advertisements. Had you also 'advertised' FOray in the same way you promoted Defoe, it might've taken a bit of the tone down (I don't know--you didn't mention FOray so I don't *know* how it would've come off). In any case, as I suspect is true for with the rest of the FOP team, I am grateful to your continued contributions to the FOP project, and I hope your contribution will continue. Web Maestro Clay On Jan 17, 2005, at 3:07 AM, Peter B. West wrote: Jeremias, Do you disagree with the assessment? Clearly people might, but I didn't say anything I don't believe is the truth about the state of FOP. If it is true, isn't it fair to let newcomers know the state of play? Finn has already talked about a radically different approach in order to solve the large files problem, and I'm sure he will present you with a swag of patches to do just that at some time in the future. I just hope he doesn't do it so soon as to render Defoe moot. One of its underlying features will be what is effectively a stream parsing mechanism. It's acceptance, which I take to be a fait accompli, there being no other design contenders, will be particularly galling for me, in light of the the blanket refusal to consider it when I proposed it, as I still do. I think I have earned the right to speak my mind on these issues. Peter Jeremias Maerki wrote: Peter, it's ok if you make other people aware of your project but the way you did that in your last post disturbs me. We know that you disagree with FOP's approach, but I would have preferred a more constructive form of making Mark aware of Defoe. Maybe I'm overreacting... Web Maestro Clay -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://homepage.mac.com/webmaestro/ My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
Re: marketing Defoe
(Don't let Peter rattle you, Jeremias--he's just jealous that I've found more XSL spec bugs than him. ;) Our delays are mostly related to advanced issues concerning layout, and the type of parser used doesn't have much effect on this issue. So I don't share Peter's conviction that FOP is in need of a major design overhaul--or that Defoe's layout is as complete as it needs to be either, for the matter. Both sides have a lot of work to do. Glen --- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter, this is not about the question whether I disagree with the assessment. You might be right, you might be wrong. I can't tell, yet, because I'm still working my way into the new layout engine. My reaction was triggered by the way you said these things, not by any technical statement. But as I said, I may be overreacting and I may not have filtered everything through all the is-written and is-in-foreign-language filters.
Re: marketing Defoe
Glen Mazza wrote: (Don't let Peter rattle you, Jeremias--he's just jealous that I've found more XSL spec bugs than him. ;) You have a lead I am unlikely to overhaul. Our delays are mostly related to advanced issues concerning layout, and the type of parser used doesn't have much effect on this issue. Time will tell. So I don't share Peter's conviction that FOP is in need of a major design overhaul--or that Defoe's layout is as complete as it needs to be either, for the matter. There is no Defoe layout ... yet... Both sides have a lot of work to do. ...so yes, there is a lot of work to be done on Defoe. Glen Peter PS Thanks to Clay for the feedback.
