Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Christian, Just did it. New updated updated Peter Christian Geisert wrote: > Peter B. West schrieb: > >> plans to use the News page on the web-site to mai

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Peter B. West schrieb: [..] > I noticed again, following Satoshi's email, that we have no tags for > RCs. I think this is an oversight which should be addressed. Are there I didn't think about a tag for a RC yet.. But the whole release process should be documented somewhere like the batik

Re: image support (was: RE: Fop and JDK1.2 (using ant copy tasksto select implementations))

Keiron Liddle schrieb: > On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 11:05, Rob Smith wrote: > >>Everyone who needs PNG support? > > > Batik has a png decoder, a png encoder, a tiff encoder and a tiff > decoder. So what about using those ? (we ship batik anyway..) > While we are stuck with a obselete library that

Re: Fwd: Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Ralph LaChance schrieb: [..] > Plus this: I work from the premise that most users of fop will prefer > ~not~ to explicitly configure their own fonts (unless the locale require > it) > but will take the built-ins -- which to my mind, means those supplied by > Java. > Would that be an um ~naive

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Christian (and Satoshi), Thanks for clarifying this. If nothing has changed in this respect from 0.20.3, then nothing is going to break for any users who upgrade from 0.20.3 to 0.20.4 (at least in this respect.) No drama. The discussion has thrown up some interesting points, and I hope to se

AW: image support (was: RE: Fop and JDK1.2 (using ant copy tasks toselect implementations))

The good library is here: Java Advanced Imaging. In a few days I will have a sample PDF renderer using it. o BMP, GIF, TIF, JPG, FPX, PNM and SVG are processed. o Immediate file operations: 1 image in memory at a time o caching, reuse by PDF features Hansuli Anderegg

image support (was: RE: Fop and JDK1.2 (using ant copy tasks toselect implementations))

On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 11:05, Rob Smith wrote: > Everyone who needs PNG support? Batik has a png decoder, a png encoder, a tiff encoder and a tiff decoder. While we are stuck with a obselete library that we can't distribute. If only there was a good image library that we could use and distribute.

RE: Fop and JDK1.2 (using ant copy tasks to select implementations)

> From: Rhett Aultman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > How many of FOP's > users built FOP from scratch and thus used ant? It's not > entirely necessary, especially if you're not a FOP developer. Everyone who needs PNG support? -- Rob Smith

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Peter B. West schrieb: > Can anyone answer the questions below? Hopefully, before the release. Ok (building the RC atm ;-) > I think we need to discuss these issues in more depth. We have people > using FOP in production, and, in spite of the fact that everyone is > aware that FOP is pre-bet

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Hi Ralph > Apropos of the many threads discussing 1.3 vs 1.2 code dependencies > particularly as it relates to the awt renderer TT fonts, and I might add > printing, I repeat my question (below) about ~how not to~ use TT fonts. I'm afraid that I can't be of any help here at the moment. Reasons a

Fwd: Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Apropos of the many threads discussing 1.3 vs 1.2 code dependencies particularly as it relates to the awt renderer TT fonts, and I might add printing, I repeat my question (below) about ~how not to~ use TT fonts. Plus this: I work from the premise that most users of fop will prefer ~not~ to exp

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Can anyone answer the questions below? Hopefully, before the release. I think we need to discuss these issues in more depth. We have people using FOP in production, and, in spite of the fact that everyone is aware that FOP is pre-beta, and that everything about it is subject to change, we sh

RE: Fop and JDK1.2

rson" on a subproject like this, then we might have what we need. -Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fop and JDK1.2 Rhett, I was originally thinking along the lines you have suggested. I

RE: Fop and JDK1.2 (using ant copy tasks to select implementations)

ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fop and JDK1.2 (using ant copy tasks to select implementations) On Tuesday 11 June 2002 14:43, Rhett Aultman wrote: >. . . > Rather than relying on Ant, I'd say a runtime detection of VM demogra

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Rhett, I was originally thinking along the lines you have suggested. In fact, I have been vaguley thinking along these lines for some time, triggered by the build contortions we have seen in the past. My preference is to sort out as much as possible (and feasible) at run-time. However, bec

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

I'm confused about exactly what the nature of the problem is here. From what I can gather so far, not insisting on 1.3 means that we must withdraw support for TT fonts in AWT. Does that imply that TT fonts were not supported in AWT in 0.20.3? If so, not supporting them in 0.20.4 is not a ba

Re: Fop and JDK1.2 (using ant copy tasks to select implementations)

On Tuesday 11 June 2002 14:43, Rhett Aultman wrote: >. . . > Rather than relying on Ant, I'd say a runtime detection of VM demographics > (version, vendor, etc) would be in order, which could then allow a > classloader to select the correct classes to instantiate. >. . . I like your idea a lot -

RE: Fop and JDK1.2 (using ant copy tasks to select implementations)

7;d say a runtime detection of VM demographics (version, vendor, etc) would be in order, which could then allow a classloader to select the correct classes to instantiate. -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:48 AM To: [EMA

RE: Fop and JDK1.2

Comments below: -Original Message- From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fop and JDK1.2 >>>>>>> 2. Try to build up the support for version dependant code for the next release. Maybe

RE: Fop and JDK1.2

--Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 8:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fop and JDK1.2 Christian et al, My comparative ignorance of Java hampers me here, but might it not be possible to provide some sort of upgrade in

Re: Fop and JDK1.2 (using ant copy tasks to select implementations)

On Tuesday 11 June 2002 08:22, Jeremias Maerki wrote: >. . . > 2. Try to build up the support for version dependant code for the next > release. >. . . Note that this is fairly easy to do using filtering in ant "copy" tasks and package names containing identifiers. For example: package A conta

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Peter, that's a good idea, but as you said, it's more work for us and it increases complexity. So I think we're basically in for the following approach: 1. Compile with JDK 1.3 and provide restricted use with Java 1.2 for the 0.20.4 release. (Notice in the release notes necessary) 2. Try to bui

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Christian et al, My comparative ignorance of Java hampers me here, but might it not be possible to provide some sort of upgrade insurance by attempting to isolate version-dependent components behind access classes which provide a common interface and graceful degradation in the case of unsuppo

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

At 12:07 PM 6/10/02, you wrote: > > 3) Compile Fop with JDK1.3 (which will be done anyway) > > and state in the release notes that compiling with JDK1.2 > > and using truetype fonts in the AWT viewer does not work. > >Probably the best for the moment. I don't know if some conditional >compiling is

RE: Fop and JDK1.2

the most people. -Original Message- From: Oleg Tkachenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 3:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fop and JDK1.2 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I'm +1 for this but I can bet that's not very popular. We had a little > uproar whe

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I'm +1 for this but I can bet that's not very popular. We had a little > uproar when JDK 1.1 support was killed. I wonder how many people are > still working with JDK 1.2. It's a relatively big step from 1.1 up, but > not from 1.2 to 1.3. Unfortunately migrating to 1.3 i

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

My 2 cents on this from a user's perspective: > 1) Declare that Fop needs JDK1.3 Though 1.2 to 1.3 migration is not a big step for most people, it still is a step. Migrating complex server setups including app servers just because a single component needs a newer JRE is undesired by every sysadm

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

On Monday 10 June 2002 17:06, Christian Geisert wrote: >. . . > 1) Declare that Fop needs JDK1.3 Could cause confusion with Cocoon users - Cocoon requires JDK1.2. > 2) Remove truetype font support from AWT viewer +0 > 3) Compile Fop with JDK1.3 (which will be done anyway) > and state in the re

RE: Fop and JDK1.2

: Fop and JDK1.2 > Building Fop with JDK1.2 does not work at the moment. > > The problem is the method java.awt.Font.createFont(..) which > is used by the AWT viewer for displaying truetype fonts and > is avaible first since JDK1.3. > > So what should we do? > > 1) De

Re: Fop and JDK1.2

> Building Fop with JDK1.2 does not work at the moment. > > The problem is the method java.awt.Font.createFont(..) which > is used by the AWT viewer for displaying truetype fonts and > is avaible first since JDK1.3. > > So what should we do? > > 1) Declare that Fop needs JDK1.3 I'm +1 for this