--- Tibor Vyletel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello fopsters,
>
> so I have finished (and published in bugzilla) the
> patch which have aroused
> quite a discussion around here.
>
> Just a short description:
> 1) org.apache.fop.area.AreaFactory
> - now contains specific create method for each
--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I only see a need for plugable LMs, but the
> AreaFactory patch is so
> small that I see no problem with throwing a bone to
> Tibor.
>
> regards,
> finn
>
OK, that opinion was what I was trying to get at.
Someone else to second Andreas' feelings on
[Glen]
Finn, keep in mind--both you and Simon wanted
pluggable LM's, and you even supplied a patch for it a
few months ago. But you have been mostly silent on
the matter ever since (i.e., it looks like you don't
have a need for it ATM.)
Or perhaps I've been working on other things, like propert
Andreas L. Delmelle schrieb:
-Original Message-
From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I disagree with you that FOP should have ceased all
development during the four or five months you were
off the list. Open-source doesn't work that way.
Hmmm... One question:
Are you so
> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I disagree with you that FOP should have ceased all
> development during the four or five months you were
> off the list. Open-source doesn't work that way.
Hmmm... One question:
Are you so bent on misinterpreting one'
--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> To be completely honest, I was a bit disappointed
> when after a couple of
> months absence, finally able to check out the
> sources again, I had to find
> that the whole Visitor design just got kicked out
Andreas, we thoroughly discussed the
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> Not only that. The use-case he described doesn't seem at all
> far-fetched.
> Imagine FOP/FOray/Defoe having an AWT renderer that displays
> an editable XSL-FO in one window, the rendered result in the
> other, and allows for updates/modifications made in the first
> -Original Message-
> From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hi Victor,
> I know better than to take this bait, but ...
>
No matter... +1 for starters
> It has already been pointed out that, if the Visitor stuff was so
> terribly complex, there were other solutions that could b
Glen Mazza wrote:
> I've bought it due to my work with the apps package and
> removing AddLMVisitor, and how reducing the complexity
> allowed many other changes in other areas that weren't
> previously apparent to occur. I also think that many of your
> later enhancements in properties would
--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Chris]
>
> >>I'm definitely in agreement with you on this one
> Glen. Lets keep
> >>Layout simple whilst its still unfinished.
> >>Pluggable LMs can be added once we have an
> >>initial release.
>
> [Andreas]
>
> > Well... (sigh)... well ('nutha sigh)
Finn Bock wrote:
> I got some minor suggestions to the patch:
>
> - It should be strict typed: createBlock(..), createInline(..)
> - It should be complete so that all area creation was done through the
>factory, not just the 3 areas that Tibor needs.
Yes.
Victor Mote
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Hi fellas,
Well... (sigh)... well ('nutha sigh)
What *does* Finn think, in that case? So far, I've yet to hear a single
*solid* argument pleading against the proposed change. Of course, something
like LM Makers can be added later on --the proposed AreaFactory shouldn't
h
[Chris]
I'm definitely in agreement with you on this one Glen. Lets keep
Layout simple whilst its still unfinished.
Pluggable LMs can be added once we have an
initial release.
[Andreas]
Well... (sigh)... well ('nutha sigh)
What *does* Finn think, in that case? So far, I've yet to hear a single
*sol
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
All right, all right, maybe I'll just 'agree to disagree' in this case ;-)
--mind you, *not* WRT to Exceptions, though... I declined to further the
debate, but I'd much rather see GM read Sun's APIDoc for
java.lang.Throwable --makes sense, no? Enough, maybe, to convince o
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Glen Mazza wrote:
>
> > Personally speaking, I am much more amenable to adding
> > some complexity (LM Makers, for example, or opening up
> > our validation) if it helps out Finn's work, because
> > of the sheer weigh
Glen Mazza wrote:
Personally speaking, I am much more amenable to adding
some complexity (LM Makers, for example, or opening up
our validation) if it helps out Finn's work, because
of the sheer weight of contributions he adds to Fop.
(We slow him down, we slow down Fop.) Making these
changes for
Hello,
- Original Message -
From: "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi,
>
> > I have attached first phase (a working example) of the refactoring I was
> > talking about in my previous mails. Please let me know, if this change
is
> > acceptable for you. If it is, I will finish
> -Original Message-
> From: Tibor Vyletel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hi,
> I have attached first phase (a working example) of the refactoring I was
> talking about in my previous mails. Please let me know, if this change is
> acceptable for you. If it is, I will finish it afterwards.
>
on the interface for pluggable LMs, I can start to implement
this refactoring right away ...
Best regards,
Tibor Vyletel(not Tybor ;-)
ICQ# 79458455
- Original Message -
From: "Glen Mazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2
I'd rather we have pluggable LayoutManagers -- 1.0's
emphasis and I think our previous agreement with
Finn/Simon -- than have pluggable Area objects (where
much of layout used to be in 0.20.5.) I'm not sure if
Fop can realistically handle both at this time.
As for complexity, in our LM's, with Ty
20 matches
Mail list logo
