I would like to know what to do for the release:
1. Leave as is, a known problem.
2. Do the quick fix as jeremias suggests: putting the Commons codec
before the ImageIO variant in ImageFactory.
3. Test Jeremias' patch and apply it.
We can do the fix in the release branch (to be created) only, in
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41009.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41044.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41044.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Done, and branch xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-0_93 created.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote:
As discussed recently, I will prepare a release of FOP, to be named
0.93.
Two issues need to be addressed:
1. I will apply two patches by Richard Wheeldon, to improve
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:55, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip/
Its looking OK so far and most of the layout engine tests pass.
Just discovered the first instance of an existing testcase which gives a
different result. Under UAX#14 the following text (Note this is plain
text not FO markup!):
I created the documentation for version 0.93 (see
src/documentation/content/xdocs/0.93) and edited it for the new
release version. Please, check it. Especial attention is needed for
the new release notes, src/documentation/content/xdocs/relnotes.xml,
most of which still have to be written, the
Manuel Mall wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:55, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip/
Its looking OK so far and most of the layout engine tests pass.
Just discovered the first instance of an existing testcase which gives a
different result. Under UAX#14 the following text (Note this is plain
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 23:22, Chris Bowditch wrote:
Manuel Mall wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:55, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip/
Its looking OK so far and most of the layout engine tests pass.
Just discovered the first instance of an existing testcase which
gives a different
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 20:43, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:55, Manuel Mall wrote:
snip/
Its looking OK so far and most of the layout engine tests pass.
Just discovered the first instance of an existing testcase which
gives a different result.
Here is another
Manuel Mall wrote:
After making the appropriate adjustment to the checks in that testcase
ALL testcases are now passing!
Wonderful!
I'm really looking forward to see this great new feature!
Just a couple of doubts concerning the differences with respect to the old
implementation (I must
Hi all,
Just bumped into this and started wondering: currently FObj.bind()
has public visibility, but it seems that protected would suffice. The
method is only accessed by processNode() (which is already a
protected method), but since it needs to be overridden by subclasses,
it cannot
I'd go with option 2 (in the release branch) to get rid of the
regression with practically no risk for the release. Performance-wise,
nothing is lost compared to 0.92beta.
On 20.12.2006 09:08:38 Simon Pepping wrote:
I would like to know what to do for the release:
1. Leave as is, a known
On Dec 20, 2006, at 20:45, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I wonder about the effect of that on very long running server
applications producing all kinds of different documents. There's no
chance for freeing instances here if memory is needed. I assume
that in
this case the set of instances will
On 19.12.2006 21:02:06 Simon Pepping wrote:
As discussed recently, I will prepare a release of FOP, to be named
0.93.
Two issues need to be addressed:
1. I will apply two patches by Richard Wheeldon, to improve memory
usage:
Bug
Luca Furini wrote:
After making the appropriate adjustment to the checks in that testcase
ALL testcases are now passing!
Wonderful!
Me too!
text-align=center .conditionality=retain
...
Does this happens because that space is just before a .?
The dot (FULL STOP) has property IS and
On Thursday 21 December 2006 06:08, J.Pietschmann wrote:
Luca Furini wrote:
snip/
Another doubt: why aren't the - signs in text-align and
linefeed-treatment possible breaks?
They should be, the dash in Unicode 5.0 has the property HY, which
allows for a break after. The tables I generated
Here is a sample from the test case I am developing attached.
The ..._old.pdf file shows the current fop-trunk behaviour while
the ..._new.pdf file shows what happens in the FOP UAX#14 version.
There are quite a few subtle differences (mostly for the better I hope).
I also attach the test case
18 matches
Mail list logo
