[Bug 53860] The pdf-transcoder jar created by fop 0.94 and later includes classes from commons and avalon
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53860 Chris Bowditch bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #3 from Chris Bowditch bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com --- Thanks David. I'm closing the bug as requested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 53860] The pdf-transcoder jar created by fop 0.94 and later includes classes from commons and avalon
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53860 --- Comment #2 from David Graff djgraff...@gmail.com --- I think that this might not be a bug with FOP but with Eclipse BIRT. I'll have to circle with them and determine why the jar is included in the dependencies of BIRT. As it stands right now, there is a collision that is causing problems when BIRT is deployed in a webapp using the maven dependencies for 3.7.2 (I think) and I have to recheck the versions. At this time, close this as won't fix. If I can determine the issue on the BIRT or possibly Batik side (which is also depended on by BIRT) I'll open a bug where appropriate. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 53860] The pdf-transcoder jar created by fop 0.94 and later includes classes from commons and avalon
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53860 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 53860] The pdf-transcoder jar created by fop 0.94 and later includes classes from commons and avalon
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53860 --- Comment #1 from Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com --- I think the reason these classes have been put in there is to allow the transcoder JAR to be used as a stand-alone JAR. I could be wrong, but I don't think the intention was for users to include it in the class path. There are two JARs one with just the FOP specific classes and an all-in-one version. Which one are you using? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 53860] New: The pdf-transcoder jar created by fop 0.94 and later includes classes from commons and avalon
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53860 Priority: P2 Bug ID: 53860 Assignee: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org Summary: The pdf-transcoder jar created by fop 0.94 and later includes classes from commons and avalon Severity: blocker Classification: Unclassified OS: All Reporter: djgraff...@gmail.com Hardware: All Status: NEW Version: all Component: pdf Product: Fop The build for apache FOP produces a jar which includes partial subsets of classes from commons-io, commons-logging, and avalon. By doing this, it will potentially destabilize applications that are dependent on these libraries. Many web-application containers do not specifically enforce load order of jars and as a result if the pdf-transcoder.jar from 0.94 (and whatever it is in later releases) is loaded before the proper commons-io, commons-logging etc jar files it will cause signature errors and other runtime errors to occur. I discovered this while using the Eclipse BIRT Report Engine in a non-osgi fashion within a web application. My application logic utilizes a much newer version of commons-io. Please remove the import or merging of these class file subsets from the build process and add a dependency on the full jars in question. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Question about FOP 0.94 and 0.20.5
I try to run in a seem application the two versions of fop 0.94 and 0.20.5.I rebuild version FOP 0.94 changing the names of folders (org.apache.fop by org.jcom.fop) and jars to let de ClassLoader upload both librarys. As a result I get an error of type class not definition found for FopFactory and another strange errors. Is it posible to run both versions togheter? Thanks In advance Juanjo
Re: Question about FOP 0.94 and 0.20.5
On May 6, 2008, at 18:00, Juanjo Alejandro wrote: I try to run in a seem application the two versions of fop 0.94 and 0.20.5. I rebuild version FOP 0.94 changing the names of folders (org.apache.fop by org.jcom.fop) and jars to let de ClassLoader upload both librarys. As a result I get an error of type class not definition found for FopFactory and another strange errors. Is it posible to run both versions togheter? AFAIK, this will always cause trouble. Both versions are not meant to work together inside the same VM, and definitely not when loaded by the same ClassLoader. Anyways, modifying the sources to try to work around this limitation would be a bit too invasive for my taste. A workaround you might consider is to set up a second container that hosts the old version. That one can then be phased out over time once you're certain that 0.94 suits your needs, and this is one sure way to keep both versions completely isolated from each other. HTH! Cheers Andreas
fop 0.94 table-row keep-with-next bug
fo:block1/fo:block /fo:table-cell /fo:table-row fo:table-row keep-with-next=always fo:table-cell padding-left=3pt fo:block/ /fo:table-cell fo:table-cell padding-left=3pt fo:blockTANK CAPACITY EXCEEDED/fo:block /fo:table-cell fo:table-cell padding-left=3pt fo:block1/fo:block /fo:table-cell /fo:table-row fo:table-row fo:table-cell padding-left=3pt fo:block/ /fo:table-cell fo:table-cell padding-left=3pt fo:block text-align=right font-weight=boldTotal:/fo:block /fo:table-cell fo:table-cell padding-left=3pt fo:block font-weight=bold6/fo:block /fo:table-cell /fo:table-row /fo:table-body /fo:table Thanks for your help -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/fop-0.94-table-row-keep-with-next-bug-tp15950811p15950811.html Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [ANN] Apache FOP 0.94 Released
Vincent Hennebert schrieb: I’ve sent announcements to all the mailing lists listed on the release page [1], excepted the XSL-FO yahoo group where I’m waiting for subscribe authorization. There’s http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/ and Freshmeat left. I didn’t find out how to post a news on the former. Should I directly contact the site owner? For the latter I guess project I'd say yes. admin rights are required, which I don’t have. Christian? Yes, Jeremias and me are the project owners at the moment. Should I add you? I've added the release. -- Christian
Re: [ANN] Apache FOP 0.94 Released
I’ve sent announcements to all the mailing lists listed on the release page [1], excepted the XSL-FO yahoo group where I’m waiting for subscribe authorization. There’s http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/ and Freshmeat left. I didn’t find out how to post a news on the former. Should I directly contact the site owner? For the latter I guess project admin rights are required, which I don’t have. Christian? Oh, and I’ve just seen you’ve already added a new entry for the 0.94 version on Bugzilla. Thanks! Vincent [1] http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/release.html
[ANN] Apache FOP 0.94 Released
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Apache XML Graphics team is pleased to announce the release of Apache FOP version 0.94. This is the second production-level release after the big re-design effort. It includes many bug fixes and new features, the most important being: - - auto-detection of the fonts installed on the system; the XML metrics generation is now optional; - - support for the collapsing-border model in tables; - - internal links in PDF now point to the exact location, and not to the top of the page; - - support for UAX#14 type line breaking. This annex of the Unicode standard specifies rules for breaking text into lines depending on the language used. The complete list of changes is available at http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.94/changes_0.94.html FOP 0.94 implements the XSL-FO 1.1 recommendation to a high degree of compliance. See the compliance page for a detailed overview: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/compliance.html For download information, see the following page: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/download.html For the XML Graphics team, Vincent Hennebert -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGz0j4oHLU0ENYxYQRAmKVAJ9tE23zHcfjuaagjV8EGyRgrRYI+gCgiyDl 0bw8zrCWMvC3nbQeoKygo84= =Xmgr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [VOTE] Release FOP 0.94
Vincent Hennebert a écrit : I’d like to launch a vote for releasing version 0.94 of Apache FOP. The Time to sum up. We have 4 binding +1, 1 positive feedback. 4 out of the 9 PMC members voted. The vote passes. I’ll upload the files to the server, wait 24h for the mirrors to catch up and post the announcement for the release. Vincent
Re: Is it ok to have NullPointerException while running build's examples target for fop 0.94?
Andrejus Chaliapinas schrieb: Hi, I've made checkout of fop 0.94 branch and while running examples target from build, get this: [fop] D:\eclipse\test\fop-0_94\examples\fo\basic\images.fo - D:\eclipse\test\fop-0_94\build\examples\images.pdf [fop] [ERROR] AbstractFopImage - Error while loading image (Gif): null java.lang.NullPointerExceptionjava.lang.NullPointerException [fop] at sun.awt.image.URLImageSource.init(URLImageSource.java:43) [..] Could that be fixed? I think I had similar problems with 0.93, but thought GIFs were fixed already in 0.94. In resulting PDF I could see normally all JPEG/PNG/TIFF images, but not GIFs L. I just tried it (both with the examples-target and with the fop command) and it worked for me on both ways. How are you running it? Which Java version are you using? Could you please run the image.fo example with the fop command. -- Christian
RE: Is it ok to have NullPointerException while running build's examples target for fop 0.94?
Could that be fixed? I think I had similar problems with 0.93, but thought GIFs were fixed already in 0.94. In resulting PDF I could see normally all JPEG/PNG/TIFF images, but not GIFs L. I just tried it (both with the examples-target and with the fop command) and it worked for me on both ways. How are you running it? Which Java version are you using? I'm running Ant build from inside my Eclipse 3.1 framework with JDK 1.3.1. Could you please run the image.fo example with the fop command. Why that should be different in comparison with Ant build run, especially having all other graphics correct in resulting images.pdf? Andrejus
Is it ok to have NullPointerException while running build's examples target for fop 0.94?
Hi, I've made checkout of fop 0.94 branch and while running examples target from build, get this: [fop] D:\eclipse\test\fop-0_94\examples\fo\basic\images.fo - D:\eclipse\test\fop-0_94\build\examples\images.pdf [fop] [ERROR] AbstractFopImage - Error while loading image (Gif): null java.lang.NullPointerExceptionjava.lang.NullPointerException [fop] at sun.awt.image.URLImageSource.init(URLImageSource.java:43) [fop] at sun.awt.image.URLImageSource.init(URLImageSource.java:78) [fop] at sun.awt.image.URLImageSource.init(URLImageSource.java:83) [fop] at sun.net.www.content.image.gif.getContent(gif.java:44) [fop] at java.net.URLConnection.getContent(URLConnection.java:590) [fop] at org.apache.fop.image.GifImage.loadBitmap(GifImage.java:66) [fop] at org.apache.fop.image.AbstractFopImage.load(AbstractFopImage.java:169) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.pdf.PDFRenderer.putImage(PDFRenderer.java:1721) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.pdf.PDFRenderer.renderImage(PDFRenderer.java:1652) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderViewport(AbstractRenderer.java: 748) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractPathOrientedRenderer.renderViewport(AbstractPa thOrientedRenderer.java:541) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderInlineArea(AbstractRenderer.jav a(Compiled Code)) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.pdf.PDFRenderer.renderInlineArea(PDFRenderer.java(Comp iled Code)) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderLineArea(AbstractRenderer.java: 606) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.pdf.PDFRenderer.renderLineArea(PDFRenderer.java:1307) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderBlocks(AbstractRenderer.java:53 2) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderBlock(AbstractRenderer.java:582 ) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.pdf.PDFRenderer.renderBlock(PDFRenderer.java:1300) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderBlocks(AbstractRenderer.java:52 2) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderBlock(AbstractRenderer.java:582 ) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.pdf.PDFRenderer.renderBlock(PDFRenderer.java:1300) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderBlocks(AbstractRenderer.java:52 2) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderFlow(AbstractRenderer.java:427) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderMainReference(AbstractRenderer. java:406) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderBodyRegion(AbstractRenderer.jav a:340) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderRegionViewport(AbstractRenderer .java:285) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderPageAreas(AbstractRenderer.java :258) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.AbstractRenderer.renderPage(AbstractRenderer.java:232) [fop] at org.apache.fop.render.pdf.PDFRenderer.renderPage(PDFRenderer.java:757) [fop] at org.apache.fop.area.RenderPagesModel.addPage(RenderPagesModel.java:120) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.PageSequenceLayoutManager.finishPage(PageSequenceLa youtManager.java:424) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.PageSequenceLayoutManager.makeNewPage(PageSequenceL ayoutManager.java:377) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.PageBreaker.handleBreakTrait(PageBreaker.java:492) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.PageBreaker.startPart(PageBreaker.java:398) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.AbstractBreaker.addAreas(AbstractBreaker.java:420) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.AbstractBreaker.addAreas(AbstractBreaker.java:370) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.PageBreaker.doPhase3(PageBreaker.java:262) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.AbstractBreaker.doLayout(AbstractBreaker.java:345) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.AbstractBreaker.doLayout(AbstractBreaker.java:263) [fop] at org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.PageSequenceLayoutManager.activateLayout(PageSequen ceLayoutManager.java:144) [fop] at org.apache.fop.area.AreaTreeHandler.endPageSequence(AreaTreeHandler.java:233 ) [fop] at org.apache.fop.fo.pagination.PageSequence.endOfNode(PageSequence.java:145) [fop] at org.apache.fop.fo.FOTreeBuilder$MainFOHandler.endElement(FOTreeBuilder.java: 378) [fop] at org.apache.fop.fo.FOTreeBuilder.endElement(FOTreeBuilder.java:194) [fop] at org.apache.xalan.transformer.TransformerIdentityImpl.endElement(TransformerI dentityImpl.java:1101) [fop] at org.apache.xerces.parsers.AbstractSAXParser.endElement(Unknown Source) [fop] at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLNSDocumentScannerImpl.scanEndElement(Unknown Source) [fop] at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl$FragmentContentDispatc her.dispatch(Unknown Source)(Compiled Code) [fop] at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl.scanDocument(Unknown Source
[VOTE] Release FOP 0.94
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I’d like to launch a vote for releasing version 0.94 of Apache FOP. The candidate distribution files were created from the following tag: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/tags/fop-0_94/ They may be found on the following page: http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert/ They are signed with the same PGP key as the one which is used for this message. The MD5 sums are: c3abb854014c080fb3052dc805ae5a5e fop-0.94-src.zip f9544efe8130f8b3b65940e88ae0fe27 fop-0.94-src.tar.gz eebe11409fc31194c554911d8cf3cd5e fop-0.94-bin-jdk1.3.zip 64174d9eb3972138cfc68e2bb46ad9c8 fop-0.94-bin-jdk1.3.tar.gz 31a4bc9fa2e02a5f4ee412d936dbb81f fop-0.94-bin-jdk1.4.zip aa3c197c1b8133bbcc23104f27638023 fop-0.94-bin-jdk1.4.tar.gz The SHA sums are (can be checked using ‘openssl sha’): ad61931b9b5a8debe53ffc50dcf4755144216b04 fop-0.94-src.zip e0e073a421df8cc59cf1980ed0e9fb77f2c4931d fop-0.94-src.tar.gz 609827c0bdcfe9edd37d3f21edaf34976e1b2810 fop-0.94-bin-jdk1.3.zip 71ab946ea2f35a6d157e16713038b6bfa9ac7307 fop-0.94-bin-jdk1.3.tar.gz ad898b93c43e698113e232878bed9e52f00dbf4e fop-0.94-bin-jdk1.4.zip e970aa2d52ab3a50128b16372cbfbce63e900469 fop-0.94-bin-jdk1.4.tar.gz The new website can be checked at the following address: http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert/fop-0.94/index.html Given the importance of this release, I’d be grateful if as many people as possible could check that everything is OK. I’ll make the vote end on Thursay 23rd August, 12:00 CEST (10:00 UTC). Votes only on general@ please. Thanks, Vincent Hennebert -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGx0CNoHLU0ENYxYQRAmdxAJ4wKmLu5QmLXdUp1MZ030b6eRuQZwCdFeF7 Ra8LEgzj03+tc17bXZooHbU= =mz5V -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: FOP 0.94 : font auto detection test
To your question: Where are the xml metrics files ? They are not needed anymore. Today, we have a resonable well working font loading mechanism which makes metric files unnecessary since manual tweaking of the values is not needed anymore. Well, that's the theory. Auto-configuration still is a step backwards for a few minor points: - TrueType collections are not supported with auto-config, yet. - Some special fonts like Symbol may not be handled correctly. But then, it's still possible to configure the fonts explicitely with font metric files. On 18.07.2007 01:20:45 HLeonardi wrote: Hugues Leonardi wrote: Hello all, As said in this thread : http://www.nabble.com/Quick-survey%3A-upcoming-release-of-FOP-0.94-tf4085495.html, I have quickly tested auto detection font feature and my results are at this page : http://leohome.free.fr/FOP/tests/fop094.xml.pdf Best regards Hugues Leonardi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/FOP-0.94-%3A-font-auto-detection-test-tf4100093.html#a11659676 Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. Jeremias Maerki
Re: FOP 0.94 : font auto detection test
Hugues Leonardi wrote: Auto-configuration still is a step backwards for a few minor points: - TrueType collections are not supported with auto-config, yet. - Some special fonts like Symbol may not be handled correctly. Hi Jeremias, I didn't know this. I haven't read the whole of fop documentation, but if theses informations are not present, it could be interesting to add them. Best regards Hugues Leonardi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/FOP-0.94-%3A-font-auto-detection-test-tf4100093.html#a11678794 Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
FOP 0.94 : font auto detection test
Hugues Leonardi wrote: Hello all, As said in this thread : http://www.nabble.com/Quick-survey%3A-upcoming-release-of-FOP-0.94-tf4085495.html, I have quickly tested auto detection font feature and my results are at this page : http://leohome.free.fr/FOP/tests/fop094.xml.pdf Best regards Hugues Leonardi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/FOP-0.94-%3A-font-auto-detection-test-tf4100093.html#a11659676 Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: FOP 0.94 : font auto detection test
On Jul 18, 2007, at 01:20, HLeonardi wrote: Hi Hugues others I have quickly tested auto detection font feature and my results are at this page : http://leohome.free.fr/FOP/tests/fop094.xml.pdf FWIW, I have taken a closer look at the related test-output myself here, and I also get a number of errors, mostly the same as in Hugues' case. At first glance, I would not take these to be errors in the font- detection routine per se, but they seem to point to limitations in the types of font-files FOP can currently handle, or errors in the suppositions the current code makes about the location of ascender/ descender pairs or Unicode CMAPs in the font-files? Cheers Andreas
Re: FOP 0.94
Vincent Hennebert wrote: Hi guys, Title says it all. FOP 0.93 was released the 9th of January. I think it's time to release the next version, as many bugs have been corrected and many exciting new features added. Including collapsing border model ;) Anyone against a new release? No, I think it makes sense to do another release. Although we still cant name it 1.0 as we previously agreed that we should fix the problems with changing IPD before doing a 1.0 release. I'd volunteer to deal with all the release process... unless someone volunteers even more! However, I would gladly accept any help regarding updating the documentation. +1 from me. Chris
FOP 0.94
Hi guys, Title says it all. FOP 0.93 was released the 9th of January. I think it's time to release the next version, as many bugs have been corrected and many exciting new features added. Anyone against a new release? I'd volunteer to deal with all the release process... unless someone volunteers even more! However, I would gladly accept any help regarding updating the documentation. WDYT? Vincent
Re: FOP 0.94
Vincent, I would love to have Bug 42785 ( patch to support baseline-shift ) applied before the release, because then I could release a new plugin for the new version. I've read your comment, and I will check with the spec which options I have to improve the patch, however this will take a little while, and I will hopefully be able to do it latest by this weekend. What timeline for the release do you have in mind? Max Berger e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP/GnuPG ID: E81592BC Print: F489F8759D4132923EC4 BC7E072AB73AE81592BC For information about me or my projects please see http:// max.berger.name Am 05.07.2007 um 09:39 schrieb Vincent Hennebert: Hi guys, Title says it all. FOP 0.93 was released the 9th of January. I think it's time to release the next version, as many bugs have been corrected and many exciting new features added. Anyone against a new release? I'd volunteer to deal with all the release process... unless someone volunteers even more! However, I would gladly accept any help regarding updating the documentation. WDYT? Vincent PGP.sig Description: Signierter Teil der Nachricht
Re: FOP 0.94
Hi Max, Max Berger a écrit : Vincent, I would love to have Bug 42785 ( patch to support baseline-shift ) applied before the release, because then I could release a new plugin for the new version. I've read your comment, and I will check with the spec which options I have to improve the patch, however this will take a little while, and I will hopefully be able to do it latest by this weekend. What timeline for the release do you have in mind? Don't worry, there's not that much a hurry. First we will need to get approval from the team. Then, keep it for yourself but I fear there may be some discussion about the release number. Then ideally we should make up a list of bugs and patches that should be corrected or applied before releasing. Then there's the documentation update. Then find time to actually launch the release process (branching, tagging, building, signing...). It would be good indeed to have your patch applied before the release. Being a small patch that should be quite easy anyway. I'll make sure this will happen. Cheers, Vincent
Re: FOP 0.94
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:39:01AM +0200, Vincent Hennebert wrote: Hi guys, Title says it all. FOP 0.93 was released the 9th of January. I think it's time to release the next version, as many bugs have been corrected and many exciting new features added. Anyone against a new release? +1 from me. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
