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=43917.
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=40230.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Dear Foppies,
it has come to my attention that not everyone seems to be happy that
some of us are looking into a new design for the intermediate format
which on first glance only helps those who are doing mass document
production. OTOH, these considerations help in a long-term improvement
of our
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=43712.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 19:10, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Dear Foppies,
deleted most of the post - read the original /
If I would be the responsible project manager who is tasked with getting
a FOP 1.0 release out with the feature set as described on the wiki I
would certainly strongly resist
Jeremias,
Am Dienstag, den 27.11.2007, 11:10 +0100 schrieb Jeremias Maerki:
it has come to my attention that not everyone seems to be happy that
some of us are looking into a new design for the intermediate format
exploring a new design is never a bad idea. Indeed, one of the things I
dislike
On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:48, Chris Bowditch wrote:
Hi Chris
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
Made yet another attempt to simplify/correct the design a bit
(and hopefully fix the leak as well).
Thanks for taking the time to revisit this problem :)
Although I noticed that the diff appears to be
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
snip/
Sorry, hadn't updated for over a week... :/
No problem. It was easy enough to revert to the previous revision.
snip/
Ouch! I wasn't using the right expression to map from the stale entry's
hashCode to the corresponding bucket index.
Fixed in the diff in
On Nov 27, 2007, at 18:04, Chris Bowditch wrote:
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
snip/
Sorry, hadn't updated for over a week... :/
No problem. It was easy enough to revert to the previous revision.
snip/
Ouch! I wasn't using the right expression to map from the stale
entry's hashCode to the
Hi Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
You find that surprising? You should be used to that by now. :-)
That was ironical. Looks like I still have progress to make in terms of
joking in English :-\
I think
the spec can be interpreted both ways. Have you checked what other
implementations do?
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=43974.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Hi,
A long-term improvement of the rendering infrastructure certainly
appeals to me. If the effort to obtain better performance in mass
document production does not degrade the performance in other use
cases, there is no problem to try and implement it in the code. If the
effort may destabilize
12 matches
Mail list logo