On 31.08.2005 00:16:05 J.Pietschmann wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I don't think you missed anything important except maybe your
personal opinion how you'd propose to go on. :-)
Ok.
Step 0: Baseline rules.
- No new Errors except possibly some sort of a FOPConfigurationError
(JAXP
Jeremias,
It is a good package. I have a few remarks.
1. At some point I wanted it to be possible to set input and output
types on the Factory. In that way it would be possible to write a
factory implementation which knows about several of the processing
engines, and depending on the
The Web Maestro wrote:
On Aug 21, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Simon Pepping wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:29:03AM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On the other side, maybe we should really take the time to write up a
short specification for the API and to have that voted on. After all,
this is the
I've cleaned up JAXG and published it on my website:
http://www.jeremias-maerki.ch/dev/jaxg/
Comments are welcome.
Jeremias Maerki
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 02:29 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
The API discussion thread around 2005-08-03 trailed off. I'd like
to revive it again because I feel that is something that needs to be
done.
Anybody against moving the CLI to a org.apache.fop.cli package?
For command line applications I
On 21.08.2005 09:08:48 Manuel Mall wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 02:29 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
The API discussion thread around 2005-08-03 trailed off. I'd like
to revive it again because I feel that is something that needs to be
done.
Anybody against moving the CLI to a
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
We've already broken API compatibility so changing packages (I'm
thinking think about org.apach.fop, removing apps) shouldn't be a big
deal before the first release.
I guess people would be more upset about FOPException moving
to a new package than any other API change.
