Re: pdfbox build?
Nevermind, I believe this is the wrong distribution list. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Eric Douglas edoug...@blockhouse.com wrote: How do I build the latest pdfbox? I downloaded the trunk using git in Eclipse and the maven package run says failed. Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.869 sec FAILURE! - in org.apache.pdfbox.encryption.TestSymmetricKeyEncryption testProtection(org.apache.pdfbox.encryption.TestSymmetricKeyEncryption) Time elapsed: 0.74 sec ERROR! java.io.IOException: java.util.zip.DataFormatException: invalid code lengths set at java.util.zip.Inflater.inflateBytes(Native Method) at java.util.zip.Inflater.inflate(Inflater.java:259) at java.util.zip.Inflater.inflate(Inflater.java:280) at org.apache.pdfbox.filter.FlateFilter.decompress(FlateFilter.java:101) at org.apache.pdfbox.filter.FlateFilter.decode(FlateFilter.java:74) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.attemptDecode(COSStream.java:405) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.doDecode(COSStream.java:381) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.doDecode(COSStream.java:319) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.getUnfilteredStream(COSStream.java:235) at org.apache.pdfbox.pdfparser.PDFStreamParser.init(PDFStreamParser.java:90) at org.apache.pdfbox.contentstream.PDFStreamEngine.processStreamOperators(PDFStreamEngine.java:451) at org.apache.pdfbox.contentstream.PDFStreamEngine.processAnnotation(PDFStreamEngine.java:301) at org.apache.pdfbox.contentstream.PDFStreamEngine.showAnnotation(PDFStreamEngine.java:382) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PageDrawer.showAnnotation(PageDrawer.java:812) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PageDrawer.drawPage(PageDrawer.java:183) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PDFRenderer.renderPage(PDFRenderer.java:205) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PDFRenderer.renderImage(PDFRenderer.java:136) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PDFRenderer.renderImage(PDFRenderer.java:69) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PDFRenderer.renderImage(PDFRenderer.java:56) at org.apache.pdfbox.encryption.TestSymmetricKeyEncryption.testSymmEncrForKeySize(TestSymmetricKeyEncryption.java:246) at org.apache.pdfbox.encryption.TestSymmetricKeyEncryption.testProtection(TestSymmetricKeyEncryption.java:197) Tests run: 9, Failures: 0, Errors: 4, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2.885 sec FAILURE! - in org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.TestRendering render[26101_Colors.ai](org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.TestRendering) Time elapsed: 0 sec ERROR! java.io.IOException: java.util.zip.DataFormatException: incorrect data check at java.util.zip.Inflater.inflateBytes(Native Method) at java.util.zip.Inflater.inflate(Inflater.java:259) at java.util.zip.Inflater.inflate(Inflater.java:280) at org.apache.pdfbox.filter.FlateFilter.decompress(FlateFilter.java:101) at org.apache.pdfbox.filter.FlateFilter.decode(FlateFilter.java:74) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.attemptDecode(COSStream.java:405) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.doDecode(COSStream.java:381) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.doDecode(COSStream.java:319) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.getUnfilteredStream(COSStream.java:235) at org.apache.pdfbox.pdfparser.PDFStreamParser.init(PDFStreamParser.java:90) at org.apache.pdfbox.contentstream.PDFStreamEngine.processStreamOperators(PDFStreamEngine.java:451) at org.apache.pdfbox.contentstream.PDFStreamEngine.processStream(PDFStreamEngine.java:438) at org.apache.pdfbox.contentstream.PDFStreamEngine.processPage(PDFStreamEngine.java:149) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PageDrawer.drawPage(PageDrawer.java:179) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PDFRenderer.renderPage(PDFRenderer.java:205) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PDFRenderer.renderImage(PDFRenderer.java:136) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PDFRenderer.renderImage(PDFRenderer.java:69) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.PDFRenderer.renderImage(PDFRenderer.java:56) at org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.TestRendering.render(TestRendering.java:79) render[FANTASTICCMYK.ai](org.apache.pdfbox.rendering.TestRendering) Time elapsed: 0.088 sec ERROR! java.io.IOException: java.util.zip.DataFormatException: invalid distance too far back at java.util.zip.Inflater.inflateBytes(Native Method) at java.util.zip.Inflater.inflate(Inflater.java:259) at java.util.zip.Inflater.inflate(Inflater.java:280) at org.apache.pdfbox.filter.FlateFilter.decompress(FlateFilter.java:101) at org.apache.pdfbox.filter.FlateFilter.decode(FlateFilter.java:74) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.attemptDecode(COSStream.java:405) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.doDecode(COSStream.java:381) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.doDecode(COSStream.java:319) at org.apache.pdfbox.cos.COSStream.getUnfilteredStream(COSStream.java:235) at org.apache.pdfbox.pdfparser.PDFStreamParser.init(PDFStreamParser.java:90) at org.apache.pdfbox.contentstream.PDFStreamEngine.processStreamOperators(PDFStreamEngine.java:451) at
Re: PDFBox
Hi Simon, Yes I did argue against an upgrade to 1.6 for the reasons stated at that time, i.e. improved annotation support. However, nearly another year on, Java 8 has been out for a while and additional reasons to upgrade emerge, i.e. allow us to leverage PDFBox improvements. Therefore, I'm +1 on going to 1.6. However, I'm -1 on rushing to 7 or 8 for the reasons previously stated. FOP is a server process who user base will expect to run on a variety of different older operating systems including some mainframe systems, where upgrading Java requires the installation of many o/s patches. It can be very difficult to get approval to upgrade the o/s on such systems and therefore make it very difficult to move to newer versions of Java on such systems. So until they catch up a bit and there is a compelling reason to go to 7 or 8, I say moving to 1.6 for the imminent v2.0 release is a good plan. BTW, I think we should keep general@ in the loop as this decision has an impact on all the sub projects in XML Graphics umbrella Thanks, Chris On 18/06/2014 14:20, Simon Steiner wrote: Hi, As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302 I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different fonts. This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does Java 5 still need to be supported? Thanks
Re: PDFBox
Hehe, you found it... I didn't search on general list, my bad. Good catch! 2014-06-18 17:45 GMT+02:00 Robert Meyer rme...@hotmail.co.uk: Hi, I managed to find Chris' original comment: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-general/201310.mbox/%3cblu0-smtp152f66b6dfcfd8695df00eefb...@phx.gbl%3E -- pascal
Re: PDFBox
IIRC, Chris arged that it was hard to upgrade JVM on certain Unix environments. I didn't found the discussion, but probably was on this list, 2 or 3 monthes ago. That said, you bring some new arguments that have to be taken into account. IMHO, that means that we should provide 2 FOP versions: - fop 1.x, keeping 1.5 Java support, - new fop 2.x, with 1.6 (or earlier?) Java support Note that today we provide 2 FOP versions (current -- 1.1, and previous -- 1.0) I think there is no reason to keep both current and previous version materials on the website. But this will make sense if we have to provide wider range platform support. (thought a little out of topic here...) 2014-06-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Simon Steiner simonsteiner1...@gmail.com: Hi, As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302 I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different fonts. This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does Java 5 still need to be supported? Thanks -- pascal
RE: PDFBox
Hi, I managed to find Chris' original comment: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-general/201310.mbox/%3cblu0-smtp152f66b6dfcfd8695df00eefb...@phx.gbl%3E I think as you say having two versions makes sense. I would be in favour of that as I think FOP should be able to look to the future. Who knows, maybe we should just skip 1.6 and head straight to 1.8 ;-) Regards, Robert Meyer Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:17:17 +0200 Subject: Re: PDFBox From: psancho@gmail.com To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org IIRC, Chris arged that it was hard to upgrade JVM on certain Unix environments. I didn't found the discussion, but probably was on this list, 2 or 3 monthes ago. That said, you bring some new arguments that have to be taken into account. IMHO, that means that we should provide 2 FOP versions: - fop 1.x, keeping 1.5 Java support, - new fop 2.x, with 1.6 (or earlier?) Java support Note that today we provide 2 FOP versions (current -- 1.1, and previous -- 1.0) I think there is no reason to keep both current and previous version materials on the website. But this will make sense if we have to provide wider range platform support. (thought a little out of topic here...) 2014-06-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Simon Steiner simonsteiner1...@gmail.com: Hi, As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302 I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different fonts. This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does Java 5 still need to be supported? Thanks -- pascal
Re: PDFBox
+1 On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Robert Meyer rme...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Hi, I managed to find Chris' original comment: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-general/201310.mbox/%3cblu0-smtp152f66b6dfcfd8695df00eefb...@phx.gbl%3E I think as you say having two versions makes sense. I would be in favour of that as I think FOP should be able to look to the future. Who knows, maybe we should just skip 1.6 and head straight to 1.8 ;-) Regards, Robert Meyer Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:17:17 +0200 Subject: Re: PDFBox From: psancho@gmail.com To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org IIRC, Chris arged that it was hard to upgrade JVM on certain Unix environments. I didn't found the discussion, but probably was on this list, 2 or 3 monthes ago. That said, you bring some new arguments that have to be taken into account. IMHO, that means that we should provide 2 FOP versions: - fop 1.x, keeping 1.5 Java support, - new fop 2.x, with 1.6 (or earlier?) Java support Note that today we provide 2 FOP versions (current -- 1.1, and previous -- 1.0) I think there is no reason to keep both current and previous version materials on the website. But this will make sense if we have to provide wider range platform support. (thought a little out of topic here...) 2014-06-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Simon Steiner simonsteiner1...@gmail.com: Hi, As part of the work on merging fonts in PDFs: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2302 I am using PDFBox 2.0 instead of 1.8 since that version has switched from AWT to its own fontfile parser/renderer to give better support for different fonts. This version requires Java 6 but FOP is currently supporting Java 5, does Java 5 still need to be supported? Thanks -- pascal
