Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Jeremias Maerki]

That's all correct although the third point does not really have
anything to do with the bitmap renderer.

On 10.03.2005 14:34:57 Renaud Richardet wrote:
> Let me sum up this tread to see if I get the picture:
> 
> * Sun's codec [1] will not be integrated.
> * instead, Batik's transcoders will be used [2].
> * where and how these transcoders will be made available to fop will
> be discussed next week [3]
> * I'll start by implementing basic functionalities for TIFF and PNG
> using Batik's codecs. This will be 1.3 compilant. I should be able to
> use the actual codecs without modifications.
> * aditional functionalities (like TIFF compressions) will be added via
> the Java Image I/O (needs Java 1.4) or via JAI.Those additional
> functionalities will be stored in a separate directory (src/java-1.4).
> * an alternative would be to create|integrate these functionalities in
> the Batik code.
> * I should check that the output isn't restricted to 72-dpi [4]
> 
> Any input to tell me if these assertions are true is welcome.
> 
> Regards,
> Renaud
> 
> [1] http://java.sun.com/developer/sampsource/jai/
> [2] 
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-batik/sources/org/apache/batik/ext/awt/image/codec/tiff/
> [3] 
> http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-general/200503.mbox/[EMAIL
>  PROTECTED]
> [4] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=10756



Jeremias Maerki

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Renaud Richardet]

Let me sum up this tread to see if I get the picture:

* Sun's codec [1] will not be integrated.
* instead, Batik's transcoders will be used [2].
* where and how these transcoders will be made available to fop will
be discussed next week [3]
* I'll start by implementing basic functionalities for TIFF and PNG
using Batik's codecs. This will be 1.3 compilant. I should be able to
use the actual codecs without modifications.
* aditional functionalities (like TIFF compressions) will be added via
the Java Image I/O (needs Java 1.4) or via JAI.Those additional
functionalities will be stored in a separate directory (src/java-1.4).
* an alternative would be to create|integrate these functionalities in
the Batik code.
* I should check that the output isn't restricted to 72-dpi [4]

Any input to tell me if these assertions are true is welcome.

Regards,
Renaud

[1] http://java.sun.com/developer/sampsource/jai/
[2] 
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-batik/sources/org/apache/batik/ext/awt/image/codec/tiff/
[3] 
http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-general/200503.mbox/[EMAIL
 PROTECTED]
[4] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=10756

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Le 9 mars 05, à 01:12, Glen Mazza a écrit :
...[Thanks also to Bertrand for sending Renaud our way.
This is the second quality developer--Peter Herweg
being the other--that we have gotten from him since
I've been on this project.]..
You're welcome - and you don't even know how many people I sent your 
way that did not make it ;-)

(just kidding - I'm happy to contribute, even if it's just helping 
convince people to jump in)

-Bertrand


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Glen Mazza]

--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ah, there's the catch. Yes, CCITT4 is particularly
> interesting which is
> not supported by the code in Batik. But still, I
> think we don't have to

I don't think we have to

> support everything under JDK 1.3. 

Or anything, for that matter.  1.3 users can remain on
0.20.5 IMO, optionally downloading Oleg's TIFF patch
if they need to.  

Glen

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Jeremias Maerki]

Ah, there's the catch. Yes, CCITT4 is particularly interesting which is
not supported by the code in Batik. But still, I think we don't have to
support everything under JDK 1.3. I wonder how many people under JDK 1.3
would need that particular compression type. And if they really do they
then have several examples on how to adjust the bitmap renderer for
themselves. And a additional JAI implementation is certainly not a big
deal after we have the first one.

On 09.03.2005 16:38:33 Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> 
> > That's no problem, I think, because Batik has a TIFF encoder [3] already
> > in their codebase and we can move this code to the common area and use
> > that. Shouldn't be difficult to adjust.
> 
> Last time I checked Batik's TIFF encoder was kinda limited WRT some TIFF 
> compressions, and that's the reason I used the codec from Sun. That 
> would be really nice to fix Batik's codec instead.


Jeremias Maerki

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Jeremias Maerki]

Yes, please, because it's a lot easier to handle inside an IDE. You
simply define an additional source folder if you're on JDK 1.4, and you
don't get compile error on JDK 1.3.

On 09.03.2005 16:34:39 Glen Mazza wrote:
> --- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Otherwise, I'd rather use ImageIO even if it's
> > only available in JDKs
> > > > >=1.4.
> > > I thought FOP should be 1.3 compilant [3]? So how
> > do we go around that?
> > 
> > That's right. But nothing stops us from providing
> > additional code that's
> > JDK 1.4 dependent as long as it's not core
> > functionality and it's in a
> > separate directory (src/java-1.4).
> > 
> 
> BTW, does it have to be in a separate directory?  Can
> we keep it in the directory it would otherwise be in
> if FOP were 1.4-based but somehow alter the Ant
> scripts to help the 1.3-only users?
> 
> Glen



Jeremias Maerki

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Oleg Tkachenko]

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I would like to suggest that you implement TIFF and PNG output using
Batik's codecs.
Yep, that's the best solution. But please check that Batik's TIFF codec 
supports all TIFF compressions Sun's codec does. 2 years ago it was sort 
of limited, particularly wrt fax compressions.

I have the impression that he wants to. There are simply a few issues to
look at. Looking at possible licensing issue I'd suggest Oleg simply
donates his own classes (not the codec) to the FOP project by applying
the Apache license and posting them as a Bugzilla issue.
Ok, I will anyway, just to be at least a bit helpful here :)
--
Oleg Tkachenko
http://blog.tkachenko.com
Multiconn Technologies, Israel

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Oleg Tkachenko]

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
That's no problem, I think, because Batik has a TIFF encoder [3] already
in their codebase and we can move this code to the common area and use
that. Shouldn't be difficult to adjust.
Last time I checked Batik's TIFF encoder was kinda limited WRT some TIFF 
compressions, and that's the reason I used the codec from Sun. That 
would be really nice to fix Batik's codec instead.

--
Oleg Tkachenko
http://blog.tkachenko.com
Multiconn Technologies, Israel

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Glen Mazza]

--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > > Otherwise, I'd rather use ImageIO even if it's
> only available in JDKs
> > > >=1.4.
> > I thought FOP should be 1.3 compilant [3]? So how
> do we go around that?
> 
> That's right. But nothing stops us from providing
> additional code that's
> JDK 1.4 dependent as long as it's not core
> functionality and it's in a
> separate directory (src/java-1.4).
> 

BTW, does it have to be in a separate directory?  Can
we keep it in the directory it would otherwise be in
if FOP were 1.4-based but somehow alter the Ant
scripts to help the 1.3-only users?

Glen

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Jeremias Maerki]

On 09.03.2005 12:51:11 Renaud Richardet wrote:
> I downloaded sun's codecs [2] that Oleg used in his TIFFRenderer.
> Jeremias, you mean that we can legally just put those in the FOP-code?

This would have to be checked out. I'd rather not, especially when we
have PNG and TIFF codecs under Apache license already available.

> Following codecs are included in [2]:
> - TIFF
> - JPEG
> - PNG
> - BMP
> So it should be possible to create a renderer for each of this file
> formats. But do we need them all?
> Do we also need GIF encoding ([2] only supports GIF decoding) . If
> yes, we'll have to use other libraries like ACME Labs GIF encoder
> (right?)

I would like to suggest that you implement TIFF and PNG output using
Batik's codecs.

> Besides, I haven't understand yet if Oleg will donate his code to Apache.

I have the impression that he wants to. There are simply a few issues to
look at. Looking at possible licensing issue I'd suggest Oleg simply
donates his own classes (not the codec) to the FOP project by applying
the Apache license and posting them as a Bugzilla issue. You can then
use these classes to implement output via Batik's codecs. Or you simply
reimplement the same functionality without copy/paste. :-) As he said,
it's only a thin wrapper. The key is to have codecs with the right
licensing.

> > Otherwise, I'd rather use ImageIO even if it's only available in JDKs
> > >=1.4.
> I thought FOP should be 1.3 compilant [3]? So how do we go around that?

That's right. But nothing stops us from providing additional code that's
JDK 1.4 dependent as long as it's not core functionality and it's in a
separate directory (src/java-1.4).

> Regards,
> Renaud
> 
> [3] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1332332



Jeremias Maerki

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Renaud Richardet]

I downloaded sun's codecs [2] that Oleg used in his TIFFRenderer.
Jeremias, you mean that we can legally just put those in the FOP-code?

Following codecs are included in [2]:
- TIFF
- JPEG
- PNG
- BMP
So it should be possible to create a renderer for each of this file
formats. But do we need them all?
Do we also need GIF encoding ([2] only supports GIF decoding) . If
yes, we'll have to use other libraries like ACME Labs GIF encoder
(right?)

Besides, I haven't understand yet if Oleg will donate his code to Apache.

> Otherwise, I'd rather use ImageIO even if it's only available in JDKs
> >=1.4.
I thought FOP should be 1.3 compilant [3]? So how do we go around that?

Regards,
Renaud

[3] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1332332

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Peter B. West]

Renaud Richardet wrote:
Peter, let me answer you last mail [1] here:
You are right that the wiki is still vague about the detailled
implementation of the different renderers. Actually, I haven't started
to think about it until today. I will put my ideas tomorrow on the
wiki. I would be happy if you could put your inputs there, too.
Renaud,
I don't have particular input.  I haven't given the rendering any 
detailed thought at all, apart from the perception fostered by the 
presence of PDFGraphics2D, PDFGraphicsConfiguration, PDFGraphicsDevice 
and similar classes in other contexts, that a mapping of the Area tree 
to Java Graphics2D output could be translated very directly into PDF 
(and other formats).  If that necessarily involves the JPS, so be it.

In order to flesh these notions out, I will be taking maximum advantage 
of the expertise of others, including yourself.  In the meantime, I 
continue to work on the generation of the Area tree.

Peter
--
Peter B. West 
Folio  

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Jeremias Maerki]

That's no problem, I think, because Batik has a TIFF encoder [3] already
in their codebase and we can move this code to the common area and use
that. Shouldn't be difficult to adjust.

Otherwise, I'd rather use ImageIO even if it's only available in JDKs
>=1.4.

[3] 
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-batik/sources/org/apache/batik/ext/awt/image/codec/tiff/

On 09.03.2005 11:30:51 Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> 
> > Thanks to Glen for raising the issue. The ideal approach is if Oleg
> > would pack up his TIFFRenderer and donate it to the ASF accompanied with
> > a software grant [1], but Oleg is a FOP committer and has a CLA on file.
> > So if Oleg attaches a ZIP with the sources for the TIFFRenderer (ALv2
> > already applied) to a Bugzilla entry along with a note that we may
> > include it in FOP, that's good enough for me. It's not that the thing is
> > a big application in itself even though some people would argue works
> > like Renaud's AWT patch and Oleg's TIFFRenderer must go/run through the
> > Incubator.
> 
> To make things even more complicated, TIFFRenderer is just a thin 
> wrapper around some weird licensed [1] Sun's codec sources, called "Java 
> Advanced Imaging API 1.1.1 Sample Source" [2], which includes some 
> provisional bits of JAI. I'm not sure if we want to use it. What about 
> using full-blown JAI?
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.tkachenko.com/fop/JAI_1.1.1_sample_io_sourcecodelic.10_23_01.txt
> [2] http://java.sun.com/developer/sampsource/jai/
> -- 
> Oleg Tkachenko
> http://blog.tkachenko.com
> Multiconn Technologies, Israel



Jeremias Maerki

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Oleg Tkachenko]

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Thanks to Glen for raising the issue. The ideal approach is if Oleg
would pack up his TIFFRenderer and donate it to the ASF accompanied with
a software grant [1], but Oleg is a FOP committer and has a CLA on file.
So if Oleg attaches a ZIP with the sources for the TIFFRenderer (ALv2
already applied) to a Bugzilla entry along with a note that we may
include it in FOP, that's good enough for me. It's not that the thing is
a big application in itself even though some people would argue works
like Renaud's AWT patch and Oleg's TIFFRenderer must go/run through the
Incubator.
To make things even more complicated, TIFFRenderer is just a thin 
wrapper around some weird licensed [1] Sun's codec sources, called "Java 
Advanced Imaging API 1.1.1 Sample Source" [2], which includes some 
provisional bits of JAI. I'm not sure if we want to use it. What about 
using full-blown JAI?

[1] 
http://www.tkachenko.com/fop/JAI_1.1.1_sample_io_sourcecodelic.10_23_01.txt
[2] http://java.sun.com/developer/sampsource/jai/
--
Oleg Tkachenko
http://blog.tkachenko.com
Multiconn Technologies, Israel

Re: Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Jeremias Maerki]

Thanks to Glen for raising the issue. The ideal approach is if Oleg
would pack up his TIFFRenderer and donate it to the ASF accompanied with
a software grant [1], but Oleg is a FOP committer and has a CLA on file.
So if Oleg attaches a ZIP with the sources for the TIFFRenderer (ALv2
already applied) to a Bugzilla entry along with a note that we may
include it in FOP, that's good enough for me. It's not that the thing is
a big application in itself even though some people would argue works
like Renaud's AWT patch and Oleg's TIFFRenderer must go/run through the
Incubator.

[1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/#grants

On 09.03.2005 01:12:05 Glen Mazza wrote:
> Team,
> 
> Oleg's TIFF Renderer is under the Mozilla license[1],
> not the Apache one (also apparently some of the code
> is from Sun?).  Is the former compatible with the
> latter?  If not, I would like Oleg to switch the
> license on it before we proceed further in putting it
> into FOP.
> 
> Renaud--thanks for your fantastic work with the AWT
> Renderer.  You clearly have ace technical skills,
> enthusiasm, organization, and you write beautifully. 
> You have a bright future ahead of you.
> 
> [Thanks also to Bertrand for sending Renaud our way. 
> This is the second quality developer--Peter Herweg
> being the other--that we have gotten from him since
> I've been on this project.]
> 
> Regards,
> Glen
> 
> [1] http://www.tkachenko.com/fop/tiffrenderer.html
> 
> 
> --- Renaud Richardet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Oleg,
> > 
> > I'm currently working on the AWTRenderer. The basic
> > idea is to create
> > a Java2DRenderer which provides the (abstract)
> > technical foundation.
> > Other renderers can subclass Java2DRenderer and
> > provide the concrete
> > output paths [1].
> > 
> > I think it would be a good idea to integrate your
> > TIFFRenderer, as you
> > propose in [2]. Would you like to integrate it
> > yourself? Otherwise I
> > would like to do it.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Renaud
> > 
> > [1]
> > http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FopAndJava2D
> > [2] http://www.tkachenko.com/fop/fop.html
> > 



Jeremias Maerki

Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Renaud Richardet]

Glen,

Thanks for your mail.

It's good you raised the legal issue.

Peter, let me answer you last mail [1] here:

You are right that the wiki is still vague about the detailled
implementation of the different renderers. Actually, I haven't started
to think about it until today. I will put my ideas tomorrow on the
wiki. I would be happy if you could put your inputs there, too.

Regards,
Renaud

[1] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=10759


-- 
renaud.richardet (at) gmail (dot) com
+41 78 675 9501
www.oslutions.com

Good job! / Re: Integration of TIFFRenderer in FOP

[Glen Mazza]

Team,

Oleg's TIFF Renderer is under the Mozilla license[1],
not the Apache one (also apparently some of the code
is from Sun?).  Is the former compatible with the
latter?  If not, I would like Oleg to switch the
license on it before we proceed further in putting it
into FOP.

Renaud--thanks for your fantastic work with the AWT
Renderer.  You clearly have ace technical skills,
enthusiasm, organization, and you write beautifully. 
You have a bright future ahead of you.

[Thanks also to Bertrand for sending Renaud our way. 
This is the second quality developer--Peter Herweg
being the other--that we have gotten from him since
I've been on this project.]

Regards,
Glen

[1] http://www.tkachenko.com/fop/tiffrenderer.html


--- Renaud Richardet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Oleg,
> 
> I'm currently working on the AWTRenderer. The basic
> idea is to create
> a Java2DRenderer which provides the (abstract)
> technical foundation.
> Other renderers can subclass Java2DRenderer and
> provide the concrete
> output paths [1].
> 
> I think it would be a good idea to integrate your
> TIFFRenderer, as you
> propose in [2]. Would you like to integrate it
> yourself? Otherwise I
> would like to do it.
> 
> Regards,
> Renaud
> 
> [1]
> http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FopAndJava2D
> [2] http://www.tkachenko.com/fop/fop.html
>