Re: moving some LMs into a subpackage
Subclipse works quite well now. Refactoring works. The only bug I repeatedly stumble upon is that on Windows it doesn't compensate for the different line-endings (unix vs. Win) between the actual working copy and the original copy in the .svn directory when doing diffs. On 19.07.2005 22:26:18 J.Pietschmann wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > LOL! You're welcome to help. :-) > > Setting up Eclipse with SVN is still on my TODO list. Does > refactoring with subclipse work? Reports from last year were > quite discouraging... And thinking about major refactoring > without Eclipse support is even more discouraging ;-) > > J.Pietschmann Jeremias Maerki
Re: moving some LMs into a subpackage
Jeremias Maerki wrote: LOL! You're welcome to help. :-) Setting up Eclipse with SVN is still on my TODO list. Does refactoring with subclipse work? Reports from last year were quite discouraging... And thinking about major refactoring without Eclipse support is even more discouraging ;-) J.Pietschmann
Re: moving some LMs into a subpackage
Having moved the inline-level stuff we end up with a reasonable number of classes in layoutmgr. I now find it difficult to draw the line which LMs (plus helper classes) I would move to a "block" subpackage. Please have a look at what we have left and see if such a move would really be worth it and where to draw the line. I'm actually quite comfortable with the way things stand right now. But I'm open for suggestions. On 17.07.2005 20:54:58 Simon Pepping wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:56:42PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > The layoutmgr package has become too crowded for my taste. It takes too > > long to locate the right classes. I might be tempted next week to move > > the inline-level related classes to org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.inline. > > Just yell, if this is a bad idea. > > A good idea. They are a different kind of LM. Would it make sense > to move the other LMs into layoutmgr.block? They are not _the_ LMs any > more than the inline LMs are. Jeremias Maerki
Re: moving some LMs into a subpackage
Thanks for the feedback, Joerg and Simon. I'll see what I can do. Greetings from ApacheCon in Stuttgart! It's a lot of fun to put so many faces to familiar names. On 17.07.2005 22:19:29 J.Pietschmann wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > The layoutmgr package has become too crowded for my taste. It takes too > > long to locate the right classes. I might be tempted next week to move > > the inline-level related classes to org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.inline. > > This is probably a good idea. > If you (we?) are at it, there are a few file name inconsistencies LOL! You're welcome to help. :-) > in the LM subpackages: > list/Item.java > vs. > list/ListBlockLayoutManager.java etc. > and > table/Cell.java and Caption.java > vs. > tale/TableAndCaptionLayoutManager.java etc. > > There may be more :-) > > J.Pietschmann Jeremias Maerki
Re: moving some LMs into a subpackage
Jeremias Maerki wrote: The layoutmgr package has become too crowded for my taste. It takes too long to locate the right classes. I might be tempted next week to move the inline-level related classes to org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.inline. This is probably a good idea. If you (we?) are at it, there are a few file name inconsistencies in the LM subpackages: list/Item.java vs. list/ListBlockLayoutManager.java etc. and table/Cell.java and Caption.java vs. tale/TableAndCaptionLayoutManager.java etc. There may be more :-) J.Pietschmann
Re: moving some LMs into a subpackage
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:56:42PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > The layoutmgr package has become too crowded for my taste. It takes too > long to locate the right classes. I might be tempted next week to move > the inline-level related classes to org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.inline. > Just yell, if this is a bad idea. A good idea. They are a different kind of LM. Would it make sense to move the other LMs into layoutmgr.block? They are not _the_ LMs any more than the inline LMs are. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
