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 input and output types (and some user
configuration, at the discretion of the factory implementation)
could choose the best engine, e.g. JFOR for fo to rtf, FOP head for
fo to all other, Batik for SVG to other.
But that would introduce input type dependence into the
code. Currently the following code:
XGProcessorFactory factory = XGProcessorFactory.newInstance();
XGProcessor processor = factory.newXGProcessor();
Source src = new StreamSource(new File(args[0]));
XGResult res = new StreamXGResult(application/pdf, new File(args[1]));
processor.process(src, res);
together with the appropriate value of the system property can be
used to process both FO and SVG, with the engine of choice by the
invoker.
2. I am a bit suprised that you use a specific factory implementation
in your examples, and not the engine agnostic newInstance
method. This is counter to the goal of engine agnostic code.
This made me think that perhaps another goal is more important:
This is a framework that allows one to access each engine through
the same interface. It does so by writing adapters between the
defined interface and the engines.
Viewed this way, the reference implementation is not just that. It
is the essential part of your package, viz. the set of adapters.
3. The interface is not limited to XML Graphics applications. It is
suitable for any engine that exposes a SAXResult interface, or can
be made to expose such an interface by an adapter.
I hope these thoughts make sense.
Regards, Simon
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:23:45PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I've cleaned up JAXG and published it on my website:
http://www.jeremias-maerki.ch/dev/jaxg/
Comments are welcome.
Jeremias Maerki
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
