RE: 0.20.5 release
Hi Fopers, I can understand your requirements, but I would like to know what memory limit you are looking for and what are the filters you two are talking about. As for me, I have been using FOP for BIG reports (fromm 100 to 2000 pages) with big tables (like you, more than 500 pages long tables). I have used some iText Features to deal with forward reference (see the list archive for more details) and this has been giving me a nice solution. I can produce a 1500 pages doc on a simple machine with 256Mo in a few minutes (yes, it swaps) and we use 1 or 2 Go Ram servers for huge documents. Anyway, we all would welcome some new solution to this problem, but surely you reckon there has been loads of workarounb in this list ? Can you be more specific about the performance threshold you are looking for ? Regards Cyril At 09:02 08/07/2003 +0430, you wrote: Dear Thomas Sporbeck It's good to see someone else is using FOP for big reports. I also using tables for inventory lists near to 600 pages and my user do not accept to use filters. This FOP is killing my user business and if I could not find a solution to it, we would trough away the FOP for good, for ever. Then it would be a shame on FOP open source developers since I would go and buy none open, commercial product. I would really appreciate if you inform me of your ideas. Regards Ali Farahani -Original Message- From: Thomas Sporbeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 0.20.5 release I would agree to Ricardo. We're using tables for inventory lists containing about 500 pages. The memory situation in that reports is really critical and we cannot force the users to set filters. On the other hand: to us it doesn't matter if this enhancement comes with 0.20.5 or with a later version (0.20.5a ?), which has of course to be decided by the developers and will possibly delay refactoring. Thomas Sporbeck - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[FW:] RE: 0.20.5 release
Hi, yes, I know there are workarounds. For me it is important to use the XSL:FO-Implementation as standard as possible. At the moment we decided not to work with the sources ourselves for programming-capacity and strategical reasons (for me it makes no sense if a houndred programmers implement the same feature separately). The current pre-release needs about 1 MB RAM per page in our reports - that is indeed no problem if you have a machine with about 256 MB or more and have no other applications loaded while using FOP. But we're using FOP as add-on to some of our applications and the PCs of the users have 128 MByte maximum and we have to tune each machine carefully with the -Xmx Parameter (otherwise FOP seems to hang in some endless loops). If you do this on a stand-alone machine: 32 MB for our reporting engine which produces the .fo-File + 32 MB for Adobe Acrobat or the FOP-Preview + n MB for FOP... If there would be a way to get the same results with about 512 kByte per page, that would be a big advantage. The fact is, that we have to (and customers/users simply do) compare the need of memory to other reporting tools as Crystal Reports or commercial XSL:FO-implementations, which use much less memory and are faster. So if there's a way to implement the suggestions for lean tables without refactoring the whole thing, I'd suppose to do so. It might be a fundamental decision if FOP is a kind of toolbox for developers or if it should be an out of the box-product for nearly everyone - I think there's so much good ideas in it that everyone should be able to use it. Thomas Sporbeck Gesendet am: 08.07.2003 11:34:58 Betreff: RE: 0.20.5 release Hi Fopers, I can understand your requirements, but I would like to know what memory limit you are looking for and what are the filters you two are talking about. As for me, I have been using FOP for BIG reports (fromm 100 to 2000 pages) with big tables (like you, more than 500 pages long tables). I have used some iText Features to deal with forward reference (see the list archive for more details) and this has been giving me a nice solution. I can produce a 1500 pages doc on a simple machine with 256Mo in a few minutes (yes, it swaps) and we use 1 or 2 Go Ram servers for huge documents. Anyway, we all would welcome some new solution to this problem, but surely you reckon there has been loads of workarounb in this list ? Can you be more specific about the performance threshold you are looking for ? Regards Cyril At 09:02 08/07/2003 +0430, you wrote: Dear Thomas Sporbeck It's good to see someone else is using FOP for big reports. I also using tables for inventory lists near to 600 pages and my user do not accept to use filters. This FOP is killing my user business and if I could not find a solution to it, we would trough away the FOP for good, for ever. Then it would be a shame on FOP open source developers since I would go and buy none open, commercial product. I would really appreciate if you inform me of your ideas. Regards Ali Farahani -Original Message- From: Thomas Sporbeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 0.20.5 release I would agree to Ricardo. We're using tables for inventory lists containing about 500 pages. The memory situation in that reports is really critical and we cannot force the users to set filters. On the other hand: to us it doesn't matter if this enhancement comes with 0.20.5 or with a later version (0.20.5a ?), which has of course to be decided by the developers and will possibly delay refactoring. Thomas Sporbeck - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FW:] RE: 0.20.5 release
Le Mardi, 8 juil 2003, à 10:14 Europe/Zurich, Thomas Sporbeck a écrit : ...It might be a fundamental decision if FOP is a kind of toolbox for developers or if it should be an out of the box-product for nearly everyone - I think there's so much good ideas in it that everyone should be able to use it I might be wrong, but I think most users of FOP are using it server-side, where resources (especially memory) are more readily available. This might explain your problems, I think little energy has been spent to optimize FOP's memory requirements. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FW:] RE: 0.20.5 release
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 14:31, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: I might be wrong, but I think most users of FOP are using it server-side, where resources (especially memory) are more readily I don't know about most users, but I am using FOP client-side since I do not have a server. Felix - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FW:] RE: 0.20.5 release
I might be wrong, but I think most users of FOP are using it server-side, where resources (especially memory) are more readily available. This might explain your problems, I think little energy has been spent to optimize FOP's memory requirements. Yes, I agree. But some companies (banking, assurance etc.) have a quite high level of security on their servers - in fact that high that an external administrator has no change to install any piece of software running on a server without some months of testing (and that tests may fail because of a memory lack on the workstations...). Thomas Sporbeck - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 0.20.5 release
ali farahani wrote: It's good to see someone else is using FOP for big reports. I always wonder what poor souls have to sift through this huge amound of paper... ;-) I also using tables for inventory lists near to 600 pages and my user do not accept to use filters. This FOP is killing my user business and if I could not find a solution to it, we would trough away the FOP for good, for ever. Then it would be a shame on FOP open source developers since I would go and buy none open, commercial product. Well, unfortunately my company has tightened my time budget which means I have to do *all* work on FOP in my spare time. However, if you have a critical bug to fix and can come up with a bunch of dollars, I'll gladly take a few days off in order to fix it (for *everyone*). In the case of the excessive memory consumption cased by tables I think I have found a fix which wont break everything else. It will certainly require some amount of testing, which means another release candidate and which is therefore quite unpopular with our release manager. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FW:] RE: 0.20.5 release
Thomas Sporbeck wrote: It might be a fundamental decision if FOP is a kind of toolbox for developers or if it should be an out of the box-product for nearly everyone It is Open Source. If you find issues and create patches, send them in. Every contribution is welcome. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 0.20.5 release
Dear Thomas Sporbeck It's good to see someone else is using FOP for big reports. I also using tables for inventory lists near to 600 pages and my user do not accept to use filters. This FOP is killing my user business and if I could not find a solution to it, we would trough away the FOP for good, for ever. Then it would be a shame on FOP open source developers since I would go and buy none open, commercial product. I would really appreciate if you inform me of your ideas. Regards Ali Farahani -Original Message- From: Thomas Sporbeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 0.20.5 release I would agree to Ricardo. We're using tables for inventory lists containing about 500 pages. The memory situation in that reports is really critical and we cannot force the users to set filters. On the other hand: to us it doesn't matter if this enhancement comes with 0.20.5 or with a later version (0.20.5a ?), which has of course to be decided by the developers and will possibly delay refactoring. Thomas Sporbeck - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 0.20.5 release
Hi, Sorry to drop in... Just ignore me if you don't see any relevance. In any case, don't bother answering me. Considering that tables are currently the only mean to control pagination, all my documents have a tendency to include lots of tables (and they all start with a TOC). I believe I'm not alone. I would say that any improvement in the memory usage associated with tables, IMHO, is kind of critical. BTW, there are currently 8 proposed patches in Bugzilla. Most of them look to me quite simple and inoquous, and 4 of them are marked as Enhamcements for version 0.20.5 (there is also an older one for version 0.20.3). It would be nice if one of you guys could take a look at those patches and consider them before issuing the final 0.20.5 release. Congratulations to you all on an excellent job, you are doing, Ricardo Amador -Original Message- From: Christian Geisert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 6:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 0.20.5 release Ok, RC3a seems to be rather stable and the changes since then look non-critical to me. What about doing the release now (read: next days) (and maybe 0.20.5a later if we get more hyphenation patterns back) Or should we make the changes proposed by Jörg (improved memory usage with tables - see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-devm=105399053227758 ) which would require another release candidate. Comments please! Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 0.20.5 release
I would agree to Ricardo. We're using tables for inventory lists containing about 500 pages. The memory situation in that reports is really critical and we cannot force the users to set filters. On the other hand: to us it doesn't matter if this enhancement comes with 0.20.5 or with a later version (0.20.5a ?), which has of course to be decided by the developers and will possibly delay refactoring. Thomas Sporbeck - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 0.20.5 release
On 17.06.2003 19:16:23 Christian Geisert wrote: RC3a seems to be rather stable and the changes since then look non-critical to me. What about doing the release now (read: next days) +1 (and maybe 0.20.5a later if we get more hyphenation patterns back) Don't count on that. :-( Or should we make the changes proposed by Jörg (improved memory usage with tables - see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-devm=105399053227758 ) which would require another release candidate. Still -0. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 0.20.5 release
Christian Geisert wrote: RC3a seems to be rather stable and the changes since then look non-critical to me. What about doing the release now (read: next days) (and maybe 0.20.5a later if we get more hyphenation patterns back) Or should we make the changes proposed by Jörg (improved memory usage with tables - see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-devm=105399053227758 ) which would require another release candidate. I'd rather close the book on the maintenance code so that something could be done on HEAD. Take the footnote space problem I analysed yesterday: while I know quite precisely what went wrong (two different approaches to account for footnote space working concurrently) I have no idea what breaks if I attempt a fix. While HEAD has a lot of technical details to fix, the overall approach seams to be much more promising. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]