Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
So what is your point? - that we need a whole lot more people working on this. We already know, either people will volunteer or they won't. - that you don't know how to help. You said you can see problems. Tell us you are going to fix those problems. Then do it. - that we need: coders, project coordinator, documenters, testers, examples etc. - we need deadlines, timetables, that only works when the other things are in order - upto date progress on everything. I would estimate that would take 60% of the time under the current circumstances, do you want things to take 2.5 times longer. The only conclusion I can make is that I made the website look too good (or inappropriate). People seem to think that we have the resources of projects with 20-500 times the people. Since we cannot manage the resources then we should manage user expectation better. Here is what you will do over the next week: go to - http://xml.apache.org/fop/todo.html in cvs - docs/xml-docs/fop/todo.xml and update it to reflect the current priorities work out what other people will do what people need how and in what order you can use the archives and the mailing list (if you want me to answer questions I need to see that you are making a net positive contribution) On 2002.02.06 19:36 Matthew L. Avizinis wrote: OK, so how can I help? I am not what could be called by most standards a professionally competent Java programmer yet. However, I agree that documentation is lacking -- I noticed that many, or at least some, of the Help documents in the distribution have not been updated since 1999 (or if they have been, -last edited- date and by whom have not been). I am attempting to use FOP for my company's publishing work flow - source content to pdf, html, and mySQL database text blobs. It's a great product, considering that XEP costs =$5,000, but frustrating in that Help is not always (or has ever been?) up to date with the current release. I might be able to squeeze in an hour or two a week for something deemed useful by someone in charge. Btw, who's in charge? It doesn't seem clear to me. And reluctantly, but while I'm at it, what the hey (certainly Keiron's always very patient comments didn't provoke the following), (everyone is entitled to a little ranting now and then, yes?): And why does it seem that those folks working on this project seem so against stating what their goals for when they want to complete certain stages of development, i.e. it'll be done when it's done is frankly not what I'd expect to here from a professional, even if they are only programming on their free time. If you expect users to use the product, not just hobbyist's or programming guru's, then you've got to be more forthcoming with what the development plan is. At least then, if you don't meet it, you can identify why and then set a new, more realistic goal. Finally, one thing FOP should have is an upto date page identifying all the elements, attributes, and attribute values that are supported. For instance, how long is keep-with-next going to remain (broken) on the website, when it clearly is implemented at least partially with tables? If you need someone to do it, just tell me how and I'll get about it. As to feature requests -- not everyone is a programmer, in fact most people are users, so not everyone can volunteer to implement something. Maybe it's not the best example, but when I use MSWord and it has a defect, I don't volunteer to fix it; I expect MS to do it. I just want to use the product (commercial or not) to make my other development efforts easier. On the other hand, I know the active developers have much to do. So rather, than brush people off with do I here you volunteering, create a public wish list or to-do list or whatever you want to call it. I know the type of comments this will probably generate around here about this being Open Source, and there being too few developers. Sure, I understand all that. But a plain 'ol user has certain performance expectations. I doubt that mySQL would enjoy the popularity it does today, if developers didn't meet user expectations (granted, there are far more people working on it, but I hope you get my point). Well, I've had my sayso, and I feel better. Now I can calm down again. :-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
-Original Message- From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project So what is your point? - that we need a whole lot more people working on this. We already know, either people will volunteer or they won't. - that you don't know how to help. You said you can see problems. Tell us you are going to fix those problems. Then do it. Well, now that I consider it more, I have to say that I guess I am just used to a corporate way of developing software that has a definite administrative structure and plan of action with people assigned specific tasks. Since I've never worked on an Open Source project, it justs seems sort of anarchistic to me. Maybe it'll be fun -- it justs seems like a lot of code, documentation, and examples to just jump into. - that we need: coders, project coordinator, documenters, testers, examples etc. - we need deadlines, timetables, that only works when the other things are in order - upto date progress on everything. I would estimate that would take 60% of the time under the current circumstances, do you want things to take 2.5 times longer. The only conclusion I can make is that I made the website look too good (or inappropriate). People seem to think that we have the resources of projects with 20-500 times the people. Since we cannot manage the resources then we should manage user expectation better. Here is what you will do over the next week: go to - http://xml.apache.org/fop/todo.html in cvs - docs/xml-docs/fop/todo.xml and update it to reflect the current priorities work out what other people will do what people need how and in what order you can use the archives and the mailing list (if you want me to answer questions I need to see that you are making a net positive contribution) On 2002.02.06 19:36 Matthew L. Avizinis wrote: OK, so how can I help? I am not what could be called by most standards a professionally competent Java programmer yet. However, I agree that documentation is lacking -- I noticed that many, or at least some, of the Help documents in the distribution have not been updated since 1999 (or if they have been, -last edited- date and by whom have not been). I am attempting to use FOP for my company's publishing work flow - source content to pdf, html, and mySQL database text blobs. It's a great product, considering that XEP costs =$5,000, but frustrating in that Help is not always (or has ever been?) up to date with the current release. I might be able to squeeze in an hour or two a week for something deemed useful by someone in charge. Btw, who's in charge? It doesn't seem clear to me. And reluctantly, but while I'm at it, what the hey (certainly Keiron's always very patient comments didn't provoke the following), (everyone is entitled to a little ranting now and then, yes?): And why does it seem that those folks working on this project seem so against stating what their goals for when they want to complete certain stages of development, i.e. it'll be done when it's done is frankly not what I'd expect to here from a professional, even if they are only programming on their free time. If you expect users to use the product, not just hobbyist's or programming guru's, then you've got to be more forthcoming with what the development plan is. At least then, if you don't meet it, you can identify why and then set a new, more realistic goal. Finally, one thing FOP should have is an upto date page identifying all the elements, attributes, and attribute values that are supported. For instance, how long is keep-with-next going to remain (broken) on the website, when it clearly is implemented at least partially with tables? If you need someone to do it, just tell me how and I'll get about it. As to feature requests -- not everyone is a programmer, in fact most people are users, so not everyone can volunteer to implement something. Maybe it's not the best example, but when I use MSWord and it has a defect, I don't volunteer to fix it; I expect MS to do it. I just want to use the product (commercial or not) to make my other development efforts easier. On the other hand, I know the active developers have much to do. So rather, than brush people off with do I here you volunteering, create a public wish list or to-do list or whatever you want to call it. I know the type of comments this will probably generate around here about this being Open Source, and there being too few developers. Sure, I understand all that. But a plain 'ol user has certain performance expectations. I doubt that mySQL would enjoy the popularity it does today, if developers didn't meet user expectations (granted, there are far more people working on it, but I hope you get my point). Well, I've had my sayso, and I feel
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
Matthew L. Avizinis wrote: Well, now that I consider it more, I have to say that I guess I am just used to a corporate way of developing software that has a definite administrative structure and plan of action with people assigned specific tasks. Since I've never worked on an Open Source project, it justs seems sort of anarchistic to me. Bingo! If you read Eric Raymond, you will find that he likes to quote from Prince Kropotkin, one of the heavyweights of C19 Russian Anarchism. Welcome to the bazaar. Maybe it'll be fun -- it justs seems like a lot of code, documentation, and examples to just jump into. It is, on both counts. Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
At 07:31 AM 2/6/02 +0100, you wrote: I think that most people need some encouragement to take the plunge in murky waters and since so many seem to feel generous this week, allow me to toss my hat into the ring - we would be pleased to help out with the awt renderer and the print renderer -- even to the extent of hooking it up to the jdk1.4 PrintService when fop takes the 1.4 plunge. However, we'd best have someone else to provide the backend support for those functions common to all renderers for traversing the data model etc. ' cheers -Ralph LaChance - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
OK, so how can I help? I am not what could be called by most standards a professionally competent Java programmer yet. However, I agree that documentation is lacking -- I noticed that many, or at least some, of the Help documents in the distribution have not been updated since 1999 (or if they have been, -last edited- date and by whom have not been). I am attempting to use FOP for my company's publishing work flow - source content to pdf, html, and mySQL database text blobs. It's a great product, considering that XEP costs =$5,000, but frustrating in that Help is not always (or has ever been?) up to date with the current release. I might be able to squeeze in an hour or two a week for something deemed useful by someone in charge. Btw, who's in charge? It doesn't seem clear to me. And reluctantly, but while I'm at it, what the hey (certainly Keiron's always very patient comments didn't provoke the following), (everyone is entitled to a little ranting now and then, yes?): And why does it seem that those folks working on this project seem so against stating what their goals for when they want to complete certain stages of development, i.e. it'll be done when it's done is frankly not what I'd expect to here from a professional, even if they are only programming on their free time. If you expect users to use the product, not just hobbyist's or programming guru's, then you've got to be more forthcoming with what the development plan is. At least then, if you don't meet it, you can identify why and then set a new, more realistic goal. Finally, one thing FOP should have is an upto date page identifying all the elements, attributes, and attribute values that are supported. For instance, how long is keep-with-next going to remain (broken) on the website, when it clearly is implemented at least partially with tables? If you need someone to do it, just tell me how and I'll get about it. As to feature requests -- not everyone is a programmer, in fact most people are users, so not everyone can volunteer to implement something. Maybe it's not the best example, but when I use MSWord and it has a defect, I don't volunteer to fix it; I expect MS to do it. I just want to use the product (commercial or not) to make my other development efforts easier. On the other hand, I know the active developers have much to do. So rather, than brush people off with do I here you volunteering, create a public wish list or to-do list or whatever you want to call it. I know the type of comments this will probably generate around here about this being Open Source, and there being too few developers. Sure, I understand all that. But a plain 'ol user has certain performance expectations. I doubt that mySQL would enjoy the popularity it does today, if developers didn't meet user expectations (granted, there are far more people working on it, but I hope you get my point). Well, I've had my sayso, and I feel better. Now I can calm down again. :-) thanks all for your consideration, Matthew L. Avizinis mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gleim Publications, Inc. 4201 NW 95th Blvd. Gainesville, FL 32606 (352)-375-0772 ext. 101 www.gleim.com http://www.gleim.com === com·put·ing (kum' pyoot ing) 1. n the art of calculating how much time you wasted and money you spent in a doomed attempt to master a machine with a mind of it's own. --from computing: A HACKER'S DICTIONARY -Original Message- From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project As far as using FOP it is still in the early development stages. So you can evaluate it and use it if it is good enough for your needs. Due to the missing features and bugs etc. it is harder to evaluate and may be a problem if you want to extend how you use it. In terms of the current development status. I would say that there needs to be more people invloved and at the current progress it is still a long way from being completed. Part of the problem seems to be that to implement even a simple fo feature there is still a lot of other code to do. Another problem is the lack of effort around all the other important areas: website, docs, images etc. The only thing that will improve FOP is more people doing something positive even if it is small. Regards, Keiron Liddle On 2002.01.25 00:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, thank you for what looks like a fantastic effort. I admire (and am envious of) each of you who have found the time to contribute to such a valuable project. I am involved with the approval process for bringing new technology into our company. We have several development groups who have seen the FOP engine and would like to include it their applications. The requirements are pretty much the same across applications. They need to generate lots
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
Matthew, Yes, we're all entitled to a little ranting now and then. So I'll rant a little, and end with a few practical suggestions. As to who's in charge: Arved is the man, but Arved has recently started a new job, so you can imagine what his current situation is. Nonetheless, he is preparing a new maintenance release at this time. He is also concurrently involved in the design of the C/C++ version. Keiron is leading the redesign effort against the current code base with Karen heavily involved. Tore is the reference for all things fontish. That group is our active expertise on the current and immediate future code base. There are others who have worked on the code and documentation, e.g. Kelly and of course James Tauber, but who are not currently active. Bernard is the rtf guru, and he is looking at the integration of his rtf work into the project. My apologies to those I have missed. I am looking at some alternative ways to approach the design, and that, as far as current users are concerned, makes me completely useless. Given that the available time of contributors is limited, and that that availability can change dramatically and unpredictably, mapping out timetables is a demoralising business. It has been attempted, but the actual results have varied so far from the predicted that I think we are all gun-shy. A large part of the difficulty is that this particular problem has not been solved by this group before. In that sense it is uncharted territory. I saw an old movie about Christopher Columbus a while ago. He is back in the Spanish court and one of his enemies makes disparaging remarks about what a trivial matter it is to sail to the New World. Frederick March (Columbus) picks up a boiled egg and asks the bloke if he knows how to stand the egg on its end. The guy and the King and a few others attempt to balance the egg, unsuccessfully. Columbus raps the blunter end on the table, crushing the air sac, and stands the egg on the crushed base. It's easy when someone shows you how. Your comments about the relationship of the users to the makers are not *entirely* fair. Yes, users are entitled to expect that bugs and lacunae in the product will be fixed, without being told to do it yourself. Without non-participating users an Open Source project cannot expect to be very widely used. We need to know about user's requirements, and this group has made great efforts over the time that I have been involved to respond to those requirements. However, to demand that we display a level of professionalism (a word I always put in scare quotes) that I don't see from large software companies, including MS, is a bit unfair. This project has a well-defined goal: a fully confomant product ASAP. We are at a stage of re-definition. As has been stated on many occasions, the existing design has exhausted its usefulness, and requires a serious rethink. The result has to be capable of realising the afore-mentioned goal. That takes time. When it is completed, a map of sub-goals and sub-projects can be drawn up, and a vaguely useful timetable might be possible. Keiron and Karen are the primary references for this, and if they are not drawing up such a roadmap, I expect it is because they are still struggling to subdue the design. Keiron has indicated his interest in running some kind of school or seminar on the redesign for those who are interested, and I hope this comes to fruition. Keiron is committed to building on as much of the current base as possible, so I expect that we will learn a lot about that base. This will, I think, be important for moving the project forward. Some of you will have noticed that the current CVS branch does not do a lot. We need to begin to fill in those gaps, under direction from KK. If you want to help to increase the coverage of FOP, this will be the way to go. Keiron and Karen will need to mark out a number of places to which the toe of the crowbar can be usefully applied, and then talk people up to speed. We need some documenters to maintain and extend the web pages, and to do more detailed documentation on the design and implementation. I would hope that we could have two or three active in this area. The prime responsibility would be the web pages. I would imagine that one of the documenters would do all of the web page committing, but would keep the others up to date on all of the changes. If he were unable to continue with that responsibility, temporarily or permanently, a handover could be arranged within the documenters' group, and if necessary, a call could be issued for a replacement member or members. A fop-documenters mailing list may be appropriate. Peter Matthew L. Avizinis wrote: OK, so how can I help? ... Btw, who's in charge? It doesn't seem clear to me. And reluctantly, but while I'm at it, what the hey (certainly Keiron's always very patient comments didn't
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
On Thursday 07 February 2002 03:57, Arved Sandstrom wrote: . . . If you do some code and want to see it added to the main or maintenance branches, then the onus is on one or more committers to explain why it's a bad idea, but there must be a good reason. . . . To make sure there is no confusion about this, could someone clarify (once more I guess) what exactly the main and maintenance branches are, and how to get the source code for both of them? - Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
To make sure there is no confusion about this, could someone clarify (once more I guess) what exactly the main and maintenance branches are, and how to get the source code for both of them? You get the main branch by getting the sources from CVS without a tag. The maintenance branch is extracted by using the tag fop-0_20_2-maintain. So the maintenance branch is where bugfixing is done for versions 0.20.2 and later. The redesign is done on the main branch. Cheers, Jeremias Märki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OUTLINE AG Postfach 3954 - Rhynauerstr. 15 - CH-6002 Luzern Fon +41 41 317 20 20 - Fax +41 41 317 20 29 Internet http://www.outline.ch - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
As far as using FOP it is still in the early development stages. So you can evaluate it and use it if it is good enough for your needs. Due to the missing features and bugs etc. it is harder to evaluate and may be a problem if you want to extend how you use it. In terms of the current development status. I would say that there needs to be more people invloved and at the current progress it is still a long way from being completed. Part of the problem seems to be that to implement even a simple fo feature there is still a lot of other code to do. Another problem is the lack of effort around all the other important areas: website, docs, images etc. The only thing that will improve FOP is more people doing something positive even if it is small. Regards, Keiron Liddle On 2002.01.25 00:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, thank you for what looks like a fantastic effort. I admire (and am envious of) each of you who have found the time to contribute to such a valuable project. I am involved with the approval process for bringing new technology into our company. We have several development groups who have seen the FOP engine and would like to include it their applications. The requirements are pretty much the same across applications. They need to generate lots of short dynamic documents in PDF (lots=500-1000 per day, short=1-20 pages, mostly text, some tables). Some of the applications need to support unicode or double-byte languages. On the surface, I agree that FOP looks like the right answer for what they need. However, I also need to ensure that we follow our guidelines for technology acquisition. One of our primary tenets is no beta software should be included in production applications. I have read through many posts in the mail list and appreciate the honesty and clarity about the current status. Back in January of 2001 and again in July 2001, Arved Sandstrom pointed out that FOP is still a development effort. With this message, I am hoping I can persuade one of the committers to provide a January 2002 update on the status. I have found the occasional status messages very useful, hopefully any response to this message on the archive will help others in the future. Here is a snippet from the July 2001 post by Arved: FOP developers and committers have never suggested that the processor is anything other than a work in progress. My best guess is that if we have a production release by the end of the year then we'll be doing well. Alpha is a long ways away. Is this still the case? I am making an assumption that the version number speaks to the status (v0.x is pre-release). Is the version numbering a reflection of: A. Still early in development B. Indication of how completely the XSL:FO spec is implemented C. A combination of both I also in various places reference to RC (Release Candidate) versions. It seems that currently v0.20.1 is the latest stable release (no implication intended by stable - I just think I saw that phrasing somewhere associated with v0.20.1). If possible, could someone clarify the intention/meaning of the x.yy.zz version scheme. (I am guessing that x is major production release, yy is a change to what is supported, and zz is for minor changes / patches.) I see some notes about the inclusion of jfor (RTF output) into the FOP project. I think that would be really cool, and speaks very well of the effort put in thus far. Anyone care to comment on when that may make it into a release? On a somewhat related note, any updated comments on the following would be appreciated. I have seen several posts that recommend Renderx XEP if you need production level code. Is that still the case? Sometime ago, Renderx apparently put a feature comparison up on their site, but since removed it (concerns of bias, etc). I have seen references to things like look for independent comparisons. Has anyone seen a recent comparison? I can not find one (though I understand time is better spent refining the code than dedicating resources to run comparisons). Thanks in advance for any responses, Pete Tribulski - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
I think you are right Keiron, I would like to contribute to this software, I would of course like to begin with the code that is an issue for me but I am ready to hear where to look and what to do either in the maintenance branch or in the redesign one. (For the story, my fop issues are with multipage table eating too much memory) At 15:54 05/02/2002 +0100, you wrote: The only thing that will improve FOP is more people doing something positive even if it is small. Regards, Keiron Liddle Cyril Rognon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
Keiron, Welcome back. Been on holidays? Looking at the number of people who have expressed an interest in being of some help, I thought it might be of some use for you or Karen, or both, to run a school. I appreciate that many of the thorny problems with fop require the redesign, but if there are a few issues that can be resolved in the current framework, I think it might be useful to run a bug-fix or design extension school. I was thinking that you could talk your way through a couple of these hacks in great detail, commenting on everything that crosses your mind as you go, and answering questions that arise. At the end of the process, the whole dialogue (or monologue) could be dropped onto the web site as an aid to anyone else who comes along. This is just a top of the head idea, but it may have merit. There is no better way to come up to speed in a workplace situation than to have the designers and cutters give detailed presentations with lots of question and answer, where no question is too stupid. Such things always take time, and are always resisted by those who are under pressure to get the thing finished, but are always a good investment. I confess that I have great difficulty in thinking within the current code framework (but that is nothing new for me). I think that most people need some encouragement to take the plunge in murky waters. Anyway, if nobody expresses any interest, we can forget the idea. Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm willing to help with the FOp project... but i don't know if i'm good enough to help ... anyway, just let me know on this e-mail adress: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 23:25, Peter B. West wrote: . . . I think that most people need some encouragement to take the plunge in murky waters. I agree, make sense with the various offers for help that came up in the last few weeks. - Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
Matt Savino wrote:: Actually I am willing to volunteer a few hours a week towards anything the group needs done. I know it's not much, but if there's some admin or minor programming task that no one wants to do, etc. I think that one of the best ways anyone can contribute with just a few hours to spare would be to help produce more examples and help document them. Alex (really must contribute more) McLintock - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
Pete Tribulski wrote: One of our primary tenets is no beta software should be included in production applications. This is a problem statement for any open source software. Although a particular version may be called a release in Open Source circles this usually does mean that it is still beta software. Open Source software is usually tested by the users. The principle of release often means that there is usually little time spent on testing before a release. I guess the best we can do is enhance the regression suite to such a level that it satisfies your software lawyers? This would benefit the developers too. I know a bunch of Java / XML developers in London who would be happy to do this if someone paid them to :-) Oops mentioned something commercial on the mailing list. memo to=myselfMust Stop Touting For Business/memo Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
Thanks Alex, point taken. I would love nothing more than to help with the redesign for the challenge and experience. I think FOP is a great project that the world needs yesterday. Unfortunately my company already has too much work for me and my clone, and there's no money in the budget for a third clone at this time. I'm sure you hear this sob story all the time. As far as paying some third-party to address performance concerns, do you think that would make sense before the redesign is completed? thx, -Matt alex wrote: At 03:37 25/01/02, Matt Savino wrote: Arved, thanks for the status update. Looking forward to .20.3, and would love to get a rough, non-binding idea when the redesign might be accomplished. If you ask this sort of question on any Apache project where Jon S Stevens is active you will usually get the response: It'll be ready when its ready. I get the impression that the redesign is at very early stages and therefore any kind of time estimate should not be relied on. The other response is Thanks for volunteering to help with the redesign :-) The one he doesn't usually give is Do you want to pay for some Java developers to work on Fop because I'm sure we can offer a support contract :-) There are a few companies willing to help enhance Fop if you pay them. Alex - 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: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
Actually I am willing to volunteer a few hours a week towards anything the group needs done. I know it's not much, but if there's some admin or minor programming task that no one wants to do, etc. Matt Savino wrote: Thanks Alex, point taken. I would love nothing more than to help with the redesign for the challenge and experience. I think FOP is a great project that the world needs yesterday. Unfortunately my company already has too much work for me and my clone, and there's no money in the budget for a third clone at this time. I'm sure you hear this sob story all the time. As far as paying some third-party to address performance concerns, do you think that would make sense before the redesign is completed? thx, -Matt alex wrote: At 03:37 25/01/02, Matt Savino wrote: Arved, thanks for the status update. Looking forward to .20.3, and would love to get a rough, non-binding idea when the redesign might be accomplished. If you ask this sort of question on any Apache project where Jon S Stevens is active you will usually get the response: It'll be ready when its ready. I get the impression that the redesign is at very early stages and therefore any kind of time estimate should not be relied on. The other response is Thanks for volunteering to help with the redesign :-) The one he doesn't usually give is Do you want to pay for some Java developers to work on Fop because I'm sure we can offer a support contract :-) There are a few companies willing to help enhance Fop if you pay them. Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
Hi, Pete I think that it would be most accurate to say that there is a relatively stable core of features - the feedback on this list has been that people do indeed use FOP, and reliably so, in production. But there are definitely limitations - both lack of some XSL-FO features and also issues related to memory. We are not where we would like to be, despite some significant personal efforts. I don't count myself in that latter group, not for the past half year certainly, as I have been sidelined by real work. I think Keiron Liddle or Karen Lease would be best able to comment on where we FOP is headed. I think, based on your problem description, that you may very well find that FOP suits your needs even in its current state. For a certain set of problems I would not necessarily describe FOP as being beta at all. Others will likely comment. I might add that because of the Apache license your development teams would be able to freely modify and improve the source. For x.yy.z, x == 0 just means FOP hasn't achieved our first major target: full feature support at nearly Extemded Conformance, with performance enhancements. With that in mind, we advance yy every few months as relatively significant new features are introduced. 'z' represents sets of bug-fixes and minor enhancements. We are currently at 0.20.3rc, and should upgrade to 0.20.3 in less than a week. Bertrand Delacretaz is working on JFOR integration - I am sure he will have more to say. If extensive feature support (XSL-FO compliance) is the _primary_ concern, I think you'd not go wrong in looking at either RenderX XEP or Antenna House XSL Formatter. I can't comment on the price. Expect other comments. :-) Regards, Arved Sandstrom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 24, 2002 7:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Seeking Comments on Status of Project First off, thank you for what looks like a fantastic effort. I admire (and am envious of) each of you who have found the time to contribute to such a valuable project. I am involved with the approval process for bringing new technology into our company. We have several development groups who have seen the FOP engine and would like to include it their applications. The requirements are pretty much the same across applications. They need to generate lots of short dynamic documents in PDF (lots=500-1000 per day, short=1-20 pages, mostly text, some tables). Some of the applications need to support unicode or double-byte languages. On the surface, I agree that FOP looks like the right answer for what they need. However, I also need to ensure that we follow our guidelines for technology acquisition. One of our primary tenets is no beta software should be included in production applications. I have read through many posts in the mail list and appreciate the honesty and clarity about the current status. Back in January of 2001 and again in July 2001, Arved Sandstrom pointed out that FOP is still a development effort. With this message, I am hoping I can persuade one of the committers to provide a January 2002 update on the status. I have found the occasional status messages very useful, hopefully any response to this message on the archive will help others in the future. Here is a snippet from the July 2001 post by Arved: FOP developers and committers have never suggested that the processor is anything other than a work in progress. My best guess is that if we have a production release by the end of the year then we'll be doing well. Alpha is a long ways away. Is this still the case? I am making an assumption that the version number speaks to the status (v0.x is pre-release). Is the version numbering a reflection of: A. Still early in development B. Indication of how completely the XSL:FO spec is implemented C. A combination of both I also in various places reference to RC (Release Candidate) versions. It seems that currently v0.20.1 is the latest stable release (no implication intended by stable - I just think I saw that phrasing somewhere associated with v0.20.1). If possible, could someone clarify the intention/meaning of the x.yy.zz version scheme. (I am guessing that x is major production release, yy is a change to what is supported, and zz is for minor changes / patches.) I see some notes about the inclusion of jfor (RTF output) into the FOP project. I think that would be really cool, and speaks very well of the effort put in thus far. Anyone care to comment on when that may make it into a release? On a somewhat related note, any updated comments on the following would be appreciated. I have seen several posts that recommend Renderx XEP if you need production level code. Is that still the case? Sometime ago, Renderx apparently put a feature comparison up on their site, but since removed it (concerns of bias, etc). I have seen references to things like look for independent comparisons. Has anyone seen a
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project
Arved, thanks for the status update. Looking forward to .20.3, and would love to get a rough, non-binding idea when the redesign might be accomplished. FYI, here's what I gleaned from looking into the three alternate solutions you mentioned. I would love to hear more details/corrections from the experts on this board. Antenna House - Windows only, no good for us. XEP - needs TeX, not sure if I want to hassle with it or if it would ever fly w/our infrastructure guys RenderX - fits requirements. Someone else tested it but said he couldn't get access to the API from demo--only batch mode. I've heard anecdotal evidence that it is no faster than FOP. Would love to hear more from anyone else w/firsthand experience. I'll try get it set up to benchmark large reports in batch mode if I get a chance. I have another guy looking into faceless as a possible solution for generating PDFs of very large, relatively simple reports. I'd love to stay within xsl:fo though. Thanks for all your hard work, Matt Savino Arved Sandstrom wrote: Hi, Pete I think that it would be most accurate to say that there is a relatively stable core of features - the feedback on this list has been that people do indeed use FOP, and reliably so, in production. But there are definitely limitations - both lack of some XSL-FO features and also issues related to memory. We are not where we would like to be, despite some significant personal efforts. I don't count myself in that latter group, not for the past half year certainly, as I have been sidelined by real work. I think Keiron Liddle or Karen Lease would be best able to comment on where we FOP is headed. I think, based on your problem description, that you may very well find that FOP suits your needs even in its current state. For a certain set of problems I would not necessarily describe FOP as being beta at all. Others will likely comment. I might add that because of the Apache license your development teams would be able to freely modify and improve the source. For x.yy.z, x == 0 just means FOP hasn't achieved our first major target: full feature support at nearly Extemded Conformance, with performance enhancements. With that in mind, we advance yy every few months as relatively significant new features are introduced. 'z' represents sets of bug-fixes and minor enhancements. We are currently at 0.20.3rc, and should upgrade to 0.20.3 in less than a week. Bertrand Delacretaz is working on JFOR integration - I am sure he will have more to say. If extensive feature support (XSL-FO compliance) is the _primary_ concern, I think you'd not go wrong in looking at either RenderX XEP or Antenna House XSL Formatter. I can't comment on the price. Expect other comments. :-) Regards, Arved Sandstrom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 24, 2002 7:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Seeking Comments on Status of Project First off, thank you for what looks like a fantastic effort. I admire (and am envious of) each of you who have found the time to contribute to such a valuable project. I am involved with the approval process for bringing new technology into our company. We have several development groups who have seen the FOP engine and would like to include it their applications. The requirements are pretty much the same across applications. They need to generate lots of short dynamic documents in PDF (lots=500-1000 per day, short=1-20 pages, mostly text, some tables). Some of the applications need to support unicode or double-byte languages. On the surface, I agree that FOP looks like the right answer for what they need. However, I also need to ensure that we follow our guidelines for technology acquisition. One of our primary tenets is no beta software should be included in production applications. I have read through many posts in the mail list and appreciate the honesty and clarity about the current status. Back in January of 2001 and again in July 2001, Arved Sandstrom pointed out that FOP is still a development effort. With this message, I am hoping I can persuade one of the committers to provide a January 2002 update on the status. I have found the occasional status messages very useful, hopefully any response to this message on the archive will help others in the future. Here is a snippet from the July 2001 post by Arved: FOP developers and committers have never suggested that the processor is anything other than a work in progress. My best guess is that if we have a production release by the end of the year then we'll be doing well. Alpha is a long ways away. Is this still the case? I am making an assumption that the version number speaks to the status (v0.x is pre-release). Is the version numbering a reflection of: A. Still early in development B. Indication of how completely the XSL:FO spec is implemented
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project (jfor integration)
(cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - fyi) On Friday 25 January 2002 00:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . I see some notes about the inclusion of jfor (RTF output) into the FOP project. I think that would be really cool, and speaks very well of the effort put in thus far. Anyone care to comment on when that may make it into a release? I'm progressing very slowly for the integration of jfor, been talking (mostly with Keiron) about design issues. Proper jfor integration requires new interfaces to FOP, which is being partially redesigned at the same time, so it is a bit hard if we want to get it right. On the other hands, resources are scarce - I'm currently busy with other projects, and no one is currently actively working on jfor (although I understand it is in active use out there). So I cannot really commit to a timeframe for the jfor integration - if someone needs it quickly and is able to commit resources, I'd be more than happy to help (coaching etc.). -- -- Bertrand Delacrétaz, www.codeconsult.ch -- jfor.org lead developer - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking Comments on Status of Project (testing)
On Friday 25 January 2002 00:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . I am involved with the approval process for bringing new technology into our company. We have several development groups who have seen the FOP engine and would like to include it their applications. . . . One of our primary tenets is no beta software should be included in production applications. . . . Depending on the costs your company would incur if going for a commercial solution, wouldn't it be cheaper to contribute some resources to the FOP project for testing? There have been some testing efforts in the past year, but IMHO having someone come from the outside and design or complete conformance + stability tests would be a great contribution to the project. As Arved indicated, although FOP has known limitations it is fairly usable for a lot of applications today. Being able to measure this usability would be great! -- -- Bertrand Delacrétaz, www.codeconsult.ch -- jfor.org lead developer - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
