Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class

2005-08-05 Thread J.Pietschmann
Jeremias Maerki wrote: So what's left to be done in your POV? I have to read the current code first. J.Pietschmann

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class

2005-08-03 Thread Jeremias Maerki
So what's left to be done in your POV? On 02.08.2005 22:34:26 J.Pietschmann wrote: > Manuel Mall wrote: > [snip] > > Makes sense to me. Actually this is exactly what the 0.20.5 Fop.java > > does. > Well, I'd rather refrain from reintroducing a ComandLineOptions > like class. > I'd still say the m

Re: API discussion (was: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class)

2005-08-02 Thread Andreas L Delmelle
On Aug 2, 2005, at 11:14, Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 01.08.2005 18:31:35 Andreas L Delmelle wrote: ... Right now, the Driver would have to be wrapped around the main-class, which is something I do NOT like :-/ I doesn't have to. The Fop class is so light-weight (if you think the main() metho

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class

2005-08-02 Thread J.Pietschmann
Manuel Mall wrote: [snip] Makes sense to me. Actually this is exactly what the 0.20.5 Fop.java does. Well, I'd rather refrain from reintroducing a ComandLineOptions like class. I'd still say the most intuitive setup would be - API classes as usual (FO processor, configuration, maybe interfaces

Re: API discussion (was: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class)

2005-08-02 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 01.08.2005 18:31:35 Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > On Aug 1, 2005, at 11:37, Manuel Mall wrote: > > > no argument from me against what you are proposing and also Joerg in > > [1]. We > > can still have a Driver.java for backwards compatibility for those who > > want > > to "plug and play" eithe

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class

2005-08-01 Thread Manuel Mall
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:31 am, Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > On Aug 1, 2005, at 11:37, Manuel Mall wrote: > > no argument from me against what you are proposing and also Joerg > > in [1]. We > > can still have a Driver.java for backwards compatibility for those > > who want > > to "plug and play" eithe

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class

2005-08-01 Thread Andreas L Delmelle
On Aug 1, 2005, at 11:37, Manuel Mall wrote: no argument from me against what you are proposing and also Joerg in [1]. We can still have a Driver.java for backwards compatibility for those who want to "plug and play" either in the product, or in a separate jar (fop-compat.jar?), or just here i

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class

2005-08-01 Thread Manuel Mall
Andreas, no argument from me against what you are proposing and also Joerg in [1]. We can still have a Driver.java for backwards compatibility for those who want to "plug and play" either in the product, or in a separate jar (fop-compat.jar?), or just here in BugZilla. Manuel [1] http://marc.

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class

2005-07-31 Thread Andreas L Delmelle
On Jul 30, 2005, at 17:34, Manuel Mall wrote (on bugzilla): Manuel, Devs, To be able to simply replace a 0.20.5 fop.jar with 1.0dev fop.jar I have written a backwards compatible apps.Driver.java class. Everything in the class has been labelled as deprecated. FWIW: Personally, besides the co

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35939] New: - [PATCH] Port of 0.20.5 Driver.java class

2005-07-30 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu