Ok, the necessary changes except for the deprecations are done in the
branch.
On 13.02.2006 10:16:25 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip/
I decided that I will implement my proposal in
a new branch. There, everyone can have a look at the real thing and
we'll adjust as necessary to make everyone happy.
On 12.02.2006 21:18:56 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Feb 8, 2006, at 22:03, Simon Pepping wrote:
Simon / Jeremias,
6. D5 (The FOUserAgent can return the FopFactory instance. (needed
internally by FOP)): Why? Because FOUserAgent is the programmed way
to get at configuration
On Feb 8, 2006, at 22:03, Simon Pepping wrote:
Simon / Jeremias,
6. D5 (The FOUserAgent can return the FopFactory instance. (needed
internally by FOP)): Why? Because FOUserAgent is the programmed way
to get at configuration settings? Could it be better to implement
get methods on the
On 10.02.2006 18:39:15 Clay Leeds wrote:
Looks good to me. I don't have much to add.
I was wondering if the FOP API should include hooks to PostScript-
style page-reference orientation information (or anything else
PostScript-specific that may be missing). Is that something relevant
I understand that some of you may not have a lot of time. I still hope
to get some more feedback on this. I can give another task priority over
this if anyone would like some more time to review. So, I'll probably
start with work on PDF/A-1 support on Monday.
So far I've incorporated the feedback
Having just added reflection code to make my code work with 0.20.5 and
0.91 beta, I'd like to see the existing Fop() constructor continue to
work as per 0.91 beta.
Overall having to use reflection to maintain use of the current stable
while being ready for the future is at once understandable
Noted, but the fact that the API is not stable has been documented in [1].
We've been pushing finalizing the API before us for a long time. The old
0.20.5 API sadly doesn't fit all the requirements that we have today.
Another idea for your situation is a wrapper API that shields you from
the
