Re: FOP logger plea for help :-)
Clay Leeds wrote: If you could give me an idea of areas where I might be able to help, I might be able to present it to my employer. As for my talents, I'm more of a web developer than a programmer, so Java is pretty much out. There is more than enough to do for everyone: improving examples, the documentation, provide illustrations, qualified first-level help on the user list, run checkstyle and squish style errors and run regression tests. A tutorial would be great, both for XSLFO in general and runnning and configuring FOP in particular. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP logger plea for help :-)
On 10.01.2003 19:45:28 Clay Leeds wrote: > I'd be interested in helping where I could, but I'd have to get the > go-ahead from my employer. If you could give me an idea of areas where I > might be able to help, I might be able to present it to my employer. As for > my talents, I'm more of a web developer than a programmer, so Java is > pretty much out. However, I could certainly create/test files, do testing, > improve documentation formatting, proofing, etc. Having been a teacher in a > former life, I could also help with tutorials! :-) That would be great! We can use all the help we can get. Even answering questions on fop-user is a big help for us because we can concentrate more on code. The problem we're facing as volunteers is the fact that after you're done with the mailing list you've already used up most of your free time and then there's not much time left to actually get something done. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP logger plea for help :-)
Yes, the redesign is open to the public. This is OpenSource after all. :-) Everyone is invited to participate. The mailing list is fop-dev (FOP Developer Mailing List). See here: http://xml.apache.org/fop/resources.html The features you describe are planned to be supported, since we're aiming for the complete set of features defined by the basic conformance level for XSL:FO in FOP 1.0. On 10.01.2003 19:40:05 Steve Homer wrote: > Quick question regarding the redesign, is this happening in public (ie > on a mailing list somewhere?) and will the redesign support features > such as wrapping text round images / floating regions (which I was told > is not currently supported.) Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP logger plea for help :-)
Jeremias, At 10:34 AM 1/10/2003, you wrote: On 10.01.2003 19:11:02 Clay Leeds wrote: > FWIW, I've tried 0.20.5rc and have found the output almost identical with > the current version. One exception is that it seems to run about 30%-40% > faster now (!): *GRIN* Thanks especially to Henrik Olson for that one! FWIW, I meant to indicate to all, that my 40% speed improvement claim was anything but objective, and was based on a single test of a 4-page file (although subsequent tests have continued to confirm this). By the way, we're always looking for helping hands! (That's our plea. :-) Jeremias Maerki I'd be interested in helping where I could, but I'd have to get the go-ahead from my employer. If you could give me an idea of areas where I might be able to help, I might be able to present it to my employer. As for my talents, I'm more of a web developer than a programmer, so Java is pretty much out. However, I could certainly create/test files, do testing, improve documentation formatting, proofing, etc. Having been a teacher in a former life, I could also help with tutorials! :-) - Clay Leeds - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FOP logger plea for help :-)
Quick question regarding the redesign, is this happening in public (ie on a mailing list somewhere?) and will the redesign support features such as wrapping text round images / floating regions (which I was told is not currently supported.) Thanks, Steve -Original Message- From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 January 2003 18:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FOP logger plea for help :-) On 10.01.2003 19:11:02 Clay Leeds wrote: > At 09:51 AM 1/10/2003, you wrote: > >You're running FOP from the command line, so you won't have any > >chance to influence the setting of the logger yourself. You can only > >use the -d option to set the logger to DEBUG level. But what you see > >here is probably a bug in 0.20.4. Have you tried 0.20.5rc already? > > Actually, I'm not currently having a problem. I copied cmd line output > from > my last successful run of FOP. That was merely one of the lines output when > I executed the -d option in the command line. > > So, are you saying that since I'm running from the command line, I > can't > set up the logger? Does the logger show anything different from what I get > with -d? Yes, you can only tell the logger to output more (DEBUG level with -d, INFO level without). All output is sent to standard out. Setting a logger (when calling FOP from Java) would enable you to have a much finer control over logging. You could have the logger send all messages to a remote log service for example. But you need some Java knowledge. > FWIW, I've tried 0.20.5rc and have found the output almost identical > with > the current version. One exception is that it seems to run about 30%-40% > faster now (!): *GRIN* Thanks especially to Henrik Olson for that one! > It's interesting to note that 0.20.5rc requires more "Initial" & > "Current" > heap size, but used less memory. It also appears to shave off 1260ms (40% > savings!). Keeping in mind that this is a Release Candidate and that things > could change (not to mention release date! :-), but this certainly bodes > well... Not likely. > Other than speed, I haven't noticed any changes since the previous > version > personally (what do you guys do with all of your time anyway? :-). > Seriously, though, I've been using only JPG & GIF files, so I haven't > needed the functionality of JAI & JIMI yet. I'm also looking forward to > ENCRYPTION options. > > BTW, I noticed this in the Release Notes: > > This is the last planed release in the 0.20.x series (aka maintenance > branch). > > Does this mean the next version(s) will move to 0.30.x? No. Next version will most probably be a FOP 1.0DR (Developer's release, alpha quality). We're currently redesigning FOP as you might have noticed on the website. But it'll be some time (months) until then. By the way, we're always looking for helping hands! (That's our plea. :-) Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP logger plea for help :-)
On 10.01.2003 19:11:02 Clay Leeds wrote: > At 09:51 AM 1/10/2003, you wrote: > >You're running FOP from the command line, so you won't have any chance > >to influence the setting of the logger yourself. You can only use the -d > >option to set the logger to DEBUG level. But what you see here is > >probably a bug in 0.20.4. Have you tried 0.20.5rc already? > > Actually, I'm not currently having a problem. I copied cmd line output from > my last successful run of FOP. That was merely one of the lines output when > I executed the -d option in the command line. > > So, are you saying that since I'm running from the command line, I can't > set up the logger? Does the logger show anything different from what I get > with -d? Yes, you can only tell the logger to output more (DEBUG level with -d, INFO level without). All output is sent to standard out. Setting a logger (when calling FOP from Java) would enable you to have a much finer control over logging. You could have the logger send all messages to a remote log service for example. But you need some Java knowledge. > FWIW, I've tried 0.20.5rc and have found the output almost identical with > the current version. One exception is that it seems to run about 30%-40% > faster now (!): *GRIN* Thanks especially to Henrik Olson for that one! > It's interesting to note that 0.20.5rc requires more "Initial" & "Current" > heap size, but used less memory. It also appears to shave off 1260ms (40% > savings!). Keeping in mind that this is a Release Candidate and that things > could change (not to mention release date! :-), but this certainly bodes > well... Not likely. > Other than speed, I haven't noticed any changes since the previous version > personally (what do you guys do with all of your time anyway? :-). > Seriously, though, I've been using only JPG & GIF files, so I haven't > needed the functionality of JAI & JIMI yet. I'm also looking forward to > ENCRYPTION options. > > BTW, I noticed this in the Release Notes: > > This is the last planed release in the 0.20.x series (aka maintenance branch). > > Does this mean the next version(s) will move to 0.30.x? No. Next version will most probably be a FOP 1.0DR (Developer's release, alpha quality). We're currently redesigning FOP as you might have noticed on the website. But it'll be some time (months) until then. By the way, we're always looking for helping hands! (That's our plea. :-) Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP logger plea for help :-)
Jeremias, At 09:51 AM 1/10/2003, you wrote: You're running FOP from the command line, so you won't have any chance to influence the setting of the logger yourself. You can only use the -d option to set the logger to DEBUG level. But what you see here is probably a bug in 0.20.4. Have you tried 0.20.5rc already? Actually, I'm not currently having a problem. I copied cmd line output from my last successful run of FOP. That was merely one of the lines output when I executed the -d option in the command line. So, are you saying that since I'm running from the command line, I can't set up the logger? Does the logger show anything different from what I get with -d? FWIW, I've tried 0.20.5rc and have found the output almost identical with the current version. One exception is that it seems to run about 30%-40% faster now (!): ** FOP-0.20.5rc ** [DEBUG] Initial heap size: 2678Kb [DEBUG] Current heap size: 6424Kb [DEBUG] Total memory used: 3745Kb [DEBUG] Memory use is indicative; no GC was performed [DEBUG] These figures should not be used comparatively [DEBUG] Total time used: 7431ms [DEBUG] Pages rendered: 4 [DEBUG] Avg render time: 1857ms/page ** FOP-0.20.4 ** [DEBUG] Initial heap size: 1909Kb [DEBUG] Current heap size: 6033Kb [DEBUG] Total memory used: 4124Kb [DEBUG] Memory use is indicative; no GC was performed [DEBUG] These figures should not be used comparatively [DEBUG] Total time used: 12468ms [DEBUG] Pages rendered: 4 [DEBUG] Avg render time: 3117ms/page It's interesting to note that 0.20.5rc requires more "Initial" & "Current" heap size, but used less memory. It also appears to shave off 1260ms (40% savings!). Keeping in mind that this is a Release Candidate and that things could change (not to mention release date! :-), but this certainly bodes well... Other than speed, I haven't noticed any changes since the previous version personally (what do you guys do with all of your time anyway? :-). Seriously, though, I've been using only JPG & GIF files, so I haven't needed the functionality of JAI & JIMI yet. I'm also looking forward to ENCRYPTION options. BTW, I noticed this in the Release Notes: This is the last planed release in the 0.20.x series (aka maintenance branch). Does this mean the next version(s) will move to 0.30.x? :-) On 10.01.2003 18:43:02 Clay Leeds wrote: > Howdy, > > This question isn't specifically aimed at Jeremias, although he made > reference to the logger, which prompted this question: > > Is there some sort of newbie tutorial where I could learn how to enable the > logger on Windows, RedHat Linux and/or AIX? I've spent many a moment trying > to figure out how to use the logger, but to no avail. I run Windows 2000 > Pro, Linux RedHat & AIX (I'm just a user of the UNIX/Linux boxes, and not > administrator, but I can have admins install/configure stuff for me). > > I've seen logger net set errors every time I run FOP from the command line > in Windows: >[ERROR] FOP 0.20.4 >[DEBUG] Using org.apache.xerces.parsers.SAXParser as SAX2 Parser >[ERROR] Logger not set > > I think I could learn a lot about the FOP process if I could see a log. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Clay Leeds - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP logger plea for help :-)
You're running FOP from the command line, so you won't have any chance to influence the setting of the logger yourself. You can only use the -d option to set the logger to DEBUG level. But what you see here is probably a bug in 0.20.4. Have you tried 0.20.5rc already? On 10.01.2003 18:43:02 Clay Leeds wrote: > Howdy, > > This question isn't specifically aimed at Jeremias, although he made > reference to the logger, which prompted this question: > > Is there some sort of newbie tutorial where I could learn how to enable the > logger on Windows, RedHat Linux and/or AIX? I've spent many a moment trying > to figure out how to use the logger, but to no avail. I run Windows 2000 > Pro, Linux RedHat & AIX (I'm just a user of the UNIX/Linux boxes, and not > administrator, but I can have admins install/configure stuff for me). > > I've seen logger net set errors every time I run FOP from the command line > in Windows: >[ERROR] FOP 0.20.4 >[DEBUG] Using org.apache.xerces.parsers.SAXParser as SAX2 Parser >[ERROR] Logger not set > > I think I could learn a lot about the FOP process if I could see a log. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
