Re: [Vote] Add dependency to fontbox for OTF CFF

2013-01-10 Thread Chris Bowditch

Hi Rob,

On 10/01/2013 12:07, Robert Meyer wrote:

Hi all,

I posted a message yesterday about getting opinions on either adding a 
dependency to fontbox to use their implementation or write our own for 
OTF CFF support. I personally think that using fontbox would be the 
better option due to:


1) Re-use of code rather than re-writing
2) Stability and subsequent bugfixes since the time it was released.
3) Will cut development time for implementing this feature.

There is room for discussion about making the new dependency optional 
i.e. FOP working without the jar and only being called if a CFF font 
is used. At this stage though the dependency issue needs to be voted 
on. I would therefore like to start a vote.


My suggestion would be to make Fontbox an optional dependency and to 
output a warning message along the lines of: For OTF CFF support please 
add FontBox to the classpath in the event a user tries to use an OTF 
CFF Font and doesn't have FontBox in the classpath. For all other font 
types, FOP should work as normal.




As a contributor, my vote will not count toward the result, therefore 
the decision is left up to the rest of you.


+1 from me.



Regards,

Robert Meyer


Thanks,

Chris


Re: [Vote] Add dependency to fontbox for OTF CFF

2013-01-10 Thread Glenn Adams
+1

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Robert Meyer rme...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

 Hi all,

 I posted a message yesterday about getting opinions on either adding a
 dependency to fontbox to use their implementation or write our own for OTF
 CFF support. I personally think that using fontbox would be the better
 option due to:

 1) Re-use of code rather than re-writing
 2) Stability and subsequent bugfixes since the time it was released.
 3) Will cut development time for implementing this feature.

 There is room for discussion about making the new dependency optional i.e.
 FOP working without the jar and only being called if a CFF font is used. At
 this stage though the dependency issue needs to be voted on. I would
 therefore like to start a vote.

 As a contributor, my vote will not count toward the result, therefore the
 decision is left up to the rest of you.

 Regards,

 Robert Meyer



Re: [Vote] Add dependency to fontbox for OTF CFF

2013-01-10 Thread Clay Leeds
+1 from me to adding FontBox support and making it optional as Chris recommends.

FOP functionality should not change if OTF CFF Font is not requested. Of 
course, there may be other Font areas where FOP can use FontBox's help, and 
that'll come in the course of time.

Clay Leeds ~ the.webmaes...@gmail.com

On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:36 AM, Chris Bowditch bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Hi Rob,
 
 On 10/01/2013 12:07, Robert Meyer wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I posted a message yesterday about getting opinions on either adding a 
 dependency to fontbox to use their implementation or write our own for OTF 
 CFF support. I personally think that using fontbox would be the better 
 option due to:
 
 1) Re-use of code rather than re-writing
 2) Stability and subsequent bugfixes since the time it was released.
 3) Will cut development time for implementing this feature.
 
 There is room for discussion about making the new dependency optional i.e. 
 FOP working without the jar and only being called if a CFF font is used. At 
 this stage though the dependency issue needs to be voted on. I would 
 therefore like to start a vote.
 
 My suggestion would be to make Fontbox an optional dependency and to output a 
 warning message along the lines of: For OTF CFF support please add FontBox 
 to the classpath in the event a user tries to use an OTF CFF Font and 
 doesn't have FontBox in the classpath. For all other font types, FOP should 
 work as normal.
 
 
 As a contributor, my vote will not count toward the result, therefore the 
 decision is left up to the rest of you.
 
 +1 from me.
 
 
 Regards,
 
 Robert Meyer
 
 Thanks,
 
 Chris



Re: [Vote] Add dependency to fontbox for OTF CFF

2013-01-10 Thread Vincent Hennebert
+1

Vincent


On 10/01/13 13:07, Robert Meyer wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I posted a message yesterday about getting opinions on either adding a 
 dependency to fontbox to use their implementation or write our own for OTF 
 CFF support. I personally think that using fontbox would be the better option 
 due to:
 
 1) Re-use of code rather than re-writing
 2) Stability and subsequent bugfixes since the time it was released.
 3) Will cut development time for implementing this feature.
 
 There is room for discussion about making the new dependency optional i.e. 
 FOP working without the jar and only being called if a CFF font is used. At 
 this stage though the dependency issue needs to be voted on. I would 
 therefore like to start a vote.
 
 As a contributor, my vote will not count toward the result, therefore the 
 decision is left up to the rest of you.
 
 Regards,
 
 Robert Meyer
 
 


Re: [Vote] Add dependency to fontbox for OTF CFF

2013-01-10 Thread Pascal Sancho
+1

2013/1/10 Robert Meyer rme...@hotmail.co.uk:
 Hi all,

 I posted a message yesterday about getting opinions on either adding a
 dependency to fontbox to use their implementation or write our own for OTF
 CFF support. I personally think that using fontbox would be the better
 option due to:

 1) Re-use of code rather than re-writing
 2) Stability and subsequent bugfixes since the time it was released.
 3) Will cut development time for implementing this feature.

 There is room for discussion about making the new dependency optional i.e.
 FOP working without the jar and only being called if a CFF font is used. At
 this stage though the dependency issue needs to be voted on. I would
 therefore like to start a vote.

 As a contributor, my vote will not count toward the result, therefore the
 decision is left up to the rest of you.

 Regards,

 Robert Meyer



-- 
pascal


Re: [Vote] Add dependency to fontbox for OTF CFF

2013-01-10 Thread Peter Hancock
+1 if usage is restricted to OTF CFF fonts at first.


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Vincent Hennebert vhenneb...@gmail.comwrote:

 +1

 Vincent


 On 10/01/13 13:07, Robert Meyer wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  I posted a message yesterday about getting opinions on either adding a
 dependency to fontbox to use their implementation or write our own for OTF
 CFF support. I personally think that using fontbox would be the better
 option due to:
 
  1) Re-use of code rather than re-writing
  2) Stability and subsequent bugfixes since the time it was released.
  3) Will cut development time for implementing this feature.
 
  There is room for discussion about making the new dependency optional
 i.e. FOP working without the jar and only being called if a CFF font is
 used. At this stage though the dependency issue needs to be voted on. I
 would therefore like to start a vote.
 
  As a contributor, my vote will not count toward the result, therefore
 the decision is left up to the rest of you.
 
  Regards,
 
  Robert Meyer
 
 



Re: [Vote] Add dependency to fontbox for OTF CFF

2013-01-10 Thread Mehdi Houshmand
+1 for it being an optional dependency.
On Jan 10, 2013 2:45 PM, Peter Hancock peter.hanc...@gmail.com wrote:

 +1 if usage is restricted to OTF CFF fonts at first.


 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Vincent Hennebert 
 vhenneb...@gmail.comwrote:

 +1

 Vincent


 On 10/01/13 13:07, Robert Meyer wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  I posted a message yesterday about getting opinions on either adding a
 dependency to fontbox to use their implementation or write our own for OTF
 CFF support. I personally think that using fontbox would be the better
 option due to:
 
  1) Re-use of code rather than re-writing
  2) Stability and subsequent bugfixes since the time it was released.
  3) Will cut development time for implementing this feature.
 
  There is room for discussion about making the new dependency optional
 i.e. FOP working without the jar and only being called if a CFF font is
 used. At this stage though the dependency issue needs to be voted on. I
 would therefore like to start a vote.
 
  As a contributor, my vote will not count toward the result, therefore
 the decision is left up to the rest of you.
 
  Regards,
 
  Robert Meyer