Re: FOP.NET
My guess is the demand for this is still quite low (esp. WRT pdf output), due to the extended functionality offered by the Acrobat SDK, which allows the .NET-minded ( C# / VB ) folks to _easily_ generate pdf output from whatever source they want (w.o. the intermediate use of anything like XML/XSL-FO). I don't see FOPs main use as a means to generate PDFs on platforms without Acrobat support, but instead to generate PDF (and more) from a standardised XML layout. Acrobat SDK has no functionality that even remotely resembles FOP. Not only does it lack the layout engine of FOP, but its intended purpose is not to generate pdf output, it's to interact with Acrobat. There are of course a bunch of commercial solutions (DynamicPDF, TallPDF etc.) which is great for PDF generating apps, but.. 1. They lack the layout engine 2. They are not open source. The .NET community is generally quite fond of open source. 3. They are not based on FO, and standards are nice. What you gain from using them is speed, but since most of them don't have to care about the layout part, that is quite understandable. Do I think the FOP project should consider .NET? No! It should definetly focus on Java. There are more important issues than .NET availablility. Would a .NET port be worthwhile? Very much so. As far is I understand M$ tactics, they'll just wait for fop-dev to complete their work, then suddenly release some nifty tool called Microsoft FO-'something'? (perhaps add it as a supplement to Office 2006, which will of course be released in fall 2007 ;) ) They just might do that, and while they're at it, they'll probably launch an alternative to PDF... /Gunnar PS. Currently I'm using FOP from .NET using a Web Service wrapper, which works just fine, although there is some overhead in this solution. DS - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP.NET
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 06:40, Gunnar Liljas wrote: Would a .NET port be worthwhile? Very much so. Is there a reason the .NET app can't communicate with FOP over a network connection ? Why is a port needed ? They just might do that, and while they're at it, they'll probably launch an alternative to PDF... Not enough money in it relative to the anti-trust headache PS. Currently I'm using FOP from .NET using a Web Service wrapper, which works just fine, although there is some overhead in this solution. DS But it works and resource use will go down soon. -- John Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FOP.NET
I'd be no good to Microsoft it was ;) *ducks* -Original Message- From: John Austin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 December 2003 13:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FOP.NET On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 06:28, SANKAR B wrote: Hi Is there anywhere the current FOP is ported to C#. Ive found one in SF.net, but its old one and pdf is not ported in that and that proj. was also not active. Even NFOP the fop port done in J# is a very old one. Y dont Apache doesnt show much interest on .NET. Im trying to imp. FOP in Mono from go-mono.com. Looking for ur reply. We have all been wondering why .NET isn't implemented in Open Source components written in Java. Yours, Sankar.B _ Contact brides grooms FREE! Only on www.shaadi.com. http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=hmltag Register now! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- John Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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.NET
We have all been wondering why .NET isn't implemented in Open Source components written in Java. You're ironic, I know, but .NET-usage of FOP would still be quite usable. To get it in C# one would have to rewrite the entire thing (although help is available in the form om Java Language Conversion Assistant in Visual Studio). A C# FOP would preferrably use the pull architecture of the XMLReader in .NET, instead of the SAX Parser. NFOP is in J#, and while it may be worth using in a .NET environment, J# is still a strange animal. /G - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP.NET
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 12:47, Gunnar Liljas wrote: We have all been wondering why .NET isn't implemented in Open Source components written in Java. You're ironic, I know, but .NET-usage of FOP would still be quite usable. To get it in C# one would have to rewrite the entire thing (although help is available in the form om Java Language Conversion Assistant in Visual Studio). A C# FOP would preferrably use the pull architecture of the XMLReader in .NET, instead of the SAX Parser. NFOP is in J#, and while it may be worth using in a .NET environment, J# is still a strange animal. There is no reason due to FOP (or Java) that you can't execute FOP from .NET. Any restrictions are due to implementation details of .NET. That makes it a question for the developers of .NET not the developers of FOP. -- John Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FOP.NET
-Original Message- From: Gunnar Liljas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] We have all been wondering why .NET isn't implemented in Open Source components written in Java. You're ironic, I know, but .NET-usage of FOP would still be quite usable. To Of course it would be _usable_... My guess is the demand for this is still quite low (esp. WRT pdf output), due to the extended functionality offered by the Acrobat SDK, which allows the .NET-minded ( C# / VB ) folks to _easily_ generate pdf output from whatever source they want (w.o. the intermediate use of anything like XML/XSL-FO). As far is I understand M$ tactics, they'll just wait for fop-dev to complete their work, then suddenly release some nifty tool called Microsoft FO-'something'? (perhaps add it as a supplement to Office 2006, which will of course be released in fall 2007 ;) ) Greetz, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FOP.NET
Ada would have let you use the same code for all of your implementations. A version of the GNU (GNAT) Ada compiler generates ECMA, which is used in .NET. Parenthetically, the ECMA compiler was based on the GNAT J code generator. Bob Leif -Original Message- From: Gunnar Liljas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FOP.NET We have all been wondering why .NET isn't implemented in Open Source components written in Java. You're ironic, I know, but .NET-usage of FOP would still be quite usable. To get it in C# one would have to rewrite the entire thing (although help is available in the form om Java Language Conversion Assistant in Visual Studio). A C# FOP would preferrably use the pull architecture of the XMLReader in .NET, instead of the SAX Parser. NFOP is in J#, and while it may be worth using in a .NET environment, J# is still a strange animal. /G - 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]
