Great, I will start updating PDFBox to use the FOrayFont, I believe
this will go pretty smoothly because FOrayFont is already being used
for PDF creation. More details on the FOray list.
We have had some recent discussions about supported JRE's, from the
main page of FOray[1] it says that
Great, I will start updating PDFBox to use the FOrayFont, I believe
this will go pretty smoothly because FOrayFont is already being used
for PDF creation. More details on the FOray list.
We have had some recent discussions about supported JRE's, from the
main page of FOray[1] it says that
(Sorry for my late answer. Been away the last two days.)
On 13.03.2006 23:52:40 Ben Litchfield wrote:
Chris,
I don't think FOP should step up to a minimum of 1.4. Just last week
a
user was saying on the user mailing list that needed FOP to run on
JDK
1.2.
You have valid
I believe we're not talking about the same aspect. I'm not saying the
having support for parsed PDF in FOP is off-topic. I'm very much for
having that as resources allow. I was talking about adopting PDFBox.
PDFBox itself is a project big enough to support its own community.
Integrating it into
Hi Ben, hi All,
I finally have some time to chime in, sorry for the delay. Thank you for
your interest in the font subsystem.
My goal is to adapt the FOrayFont library to Fop. The main advantage of
FOrayFont over the Fop code is its ability to directly parse font files,
whereas currently with
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip/
* Adopting PDFBox into the ASF is certainly an option if the people
involved in PDFBox really want that. A full PDF library with parsing and
rendering support might go beyond the XML Graphics' project boundaries,
however. It might need to go into a separate
Ben Litchfield wrote:
Jeremias,
I'll start by answering your questions
1)What is minimum JDK required by PDFBox?
PDFBox currently requires 1.4, because it uses ImageIO and a couple
other things that make development much easier. PDFBox was compatible
with 1.3 for a long time, but I made a
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:39 AM, Chris Bowditch wrote:
Ben Litchfield wrote:
Jeremias,
I'll start by answering your questions
1)What is minimum JDK required by PDFBox?
PDFBox currently requires 1.4, because it uses ImageIO and a
couple other things that make development much easier. PDFBox was
Chris,
I don't think FOP should step up to a minimum of 1.4. Just last week
a
user was saying on the user mailing list that needed FOP to run on
JDK
1.2.
You have valid concerns, I will revisit exactly what parts of PDFBox
require 1.4. I suspect it is only small sections and
Ben,
thank you for speaking up. As Chris guessed right, I've been out of the
fight for the last few days. Still recovering...
Since I've discovered PDFBox I've always played with the thought that
one day we might put our resources together. You'll see below why I
personally haven't put any
Jeremias,
I'll start by answering your questions
1)What is minimum JDK required by PDFBox?
PDFBox currently requires 1.4, because it uses ImageIO and a couple
other things that make development much easier. PDFBox was compatible
with 1.3 for a long time, but I made a decision that sticking
Ben Litchfield wrote:
snip/
I propose that classes in FOP's package be 'merged' into the PDFBox
library and FOP utilize PDFBox for PDF functionality.
I think we should do this for a variety of reasons;
-PDFBox FOP benefit by gaining functionality
-PDFBox FOP benefit by having a larger user
Ben Litchfield schrieb:
Hello all,
Hi Ben,
I am the main developer of PDFBox, an open source(BSD) PDF library.
How many other developers are working on PDFBox?
[..]
I propose that classes in FOP's package be 'merged' into the PDFBox
library and FOP utilize PDFBox for PDF functionality.
Hi Christian,
Currently I am the only developer that works consistently on PDFBox,
other developers contribute occasionally. I just meant to introduce
myself as I assume you would not know who I am.
I was proposing that PDFBox would remain on SourceForge, but I am open
to other
Hello all,
I am the main developer of PDFBox, an open source(BSD) PDF library.
FOP contains PDF library functionality(specifically classes in
org.apache.fop.pdf.*) and PDFBox is a PDF library. Because they do
very similar things they contain a lot of overlapping code, but the pdf
package in
On Mar 9, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Ben Litchfield wrote:
Hello all,
I am the main developer of PDFBox, an open source(BSD) PDF library.
FOP contains PDF library functionality(specifically classes in
org.apache.fop.pdf.*) and PDFBox is a PDF library. Because they do
very similar things they contain
Hi Clay,
I am glad to hear this sounds like a possibility.
PDFBox is currently licensed under the BSD license. I did not initially
envision a change in licensing, but I am open to possibilities if
necessary. Is there a reason it would need to change?
It is my understanding that Apache
I spent a little time on the Apache Licensing page, and didn't find
anywhere that said it was compatible (I'm not saying it isn't
compatible, just that I didn't see anything that said it was... in
the 5 minutes I looked). As for the rest of the licensing stuff, I
don't know. But the answer
I spent a little time on the Apache Licensing page, and didn't find
anywhere that said it was compatible (I'm not saying it isn't
compatible, just that I didn't see anything that said it was... in
the 5 minutes I looked). As for the rest of the licensing stuff, I
don't know. But the answer
19 matches
Mail list logo
