RE: XMLSpy - FOP
-Original Message- From: Savino, Matt C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 28, 2002 3:20 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: XMLSpy - FOP Arved, I'd love to help out with the Perl prototyping if you have any pieces that make sense to break off. I hear you about the UML. I think on some projects it's more about control than functional necessity. [ SNIP ] -End Of Original Message- Anyone who has interest should track the mailing list for that project, which is available off the project page: https://sourceforge.net/projects/xslfo-proc/. I can think of some stuff already, which is best discussed there. If you need a break from Java and just want to get back into Perl or C, you're welcome. Also, this is an opportunity to come up to speed with XSL implementation while waiting for the FOP redesign to reach a less critical stage. If it's an either/or situation please stick with FOP and try to help out with the maintenance branch. Regards, AHS
RE: XMLSpy - FOP
Arved, I'd love to help out with the Perl prototyping if you have any pieces that make sense to break off. I hear you about the UML. I think on some projects it's more about control than functional necessity. I'm protyping an HTML ad-hoc query builder right now. Once I get the user interface signed off, I just start fleshing the thing out until I get to the database. Here's the sequence I'm planning--HTML mockup->add JavaScript (button, form manipulation)->move to JSP->add Java code->add live Data->factor out from JSP the things that make sense into the Java middle layer (beans, maybe taglibs, output servlet, obvious things like Database Manager and value objects may be factored out sooner). I'm at stage 3, I'll let you know how it comes out. IMO, developing in JSP sure beats recompiling and bouncing the web app every time (although I just discovered how to do that w/o rebooting Weblogic). And I'll take some logic in my JSP over HTML in my Java classes any day. I realize this doesn't work on huge projects. And I think on things like workflow, modeling makes a lot of sense. But I believe there's some threshold, where the bulk of the complication is in the presentation, beyond which UML becomes more of a burden than a help. On my project, the mockup IS 80-90% of the model. I'm sure there are some top-down project manager Rational Unified Process/PEP types shuddering at the thought of a cowboy developer like me using the above process. I get the exact same shudder thinking about this project if we were starting design at the middle layer with a bunch of UML that mandates solutions (EJB, Design Patterns) before we clearly see the problem. I'm also on this new kick where I'm really big on breaking the logic into pieces and dispersing them over as many different technologies as possible (where it makes sene of course). Ideally when this little query tool is done, we will have user interface presentation logic in JavaScript/CSS/JSP, business and utility logic in middle-tier Java classes, data extraction and security logic in SQL stored procedures, and output presentation logic in XSLT (forked to HTML, PDF, XML, CSV). Now we have built-in modularity and multiple simple-interface "pinch-off" points w/o having to spend time contriving modularity schemes to force on the design. Very little of this relates to FOP by the way. I just like to ramble, it helps me think. -Matt > -Original Message- > From: Arved Sandstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: XMLSpy - FOP > > > -Original Message- > From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: February 27, 2002 11:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: fop-dev > Subject: Re: XMLSpy - FOP > > [ SNIP ] > Let me just strongly endorse Arved's comment about the oxymoronic "UML > design", as in "design by UML". What a bizarre idea. It must be > something consultants do. > > -End Of Original Message- > > I should add, I attempted and rejected the use of UML in this > particular > instance. As I look back at it, this was more the fault of > trying to use UML > modelling tools on a 17" screen; by the time all the menus > and side windows > and toolbars have occupied screen real-estate you have a little > quarter-screen window where you can visualize about 2 entire > classes or a > third of a reasonably useful sequence diagram. :-) So I gave > up...the tools > and my monitor failed, not the notation. I suspect that if I > had used pencil > and bristol board and/or a whteboard then UML would have > worked out better. > > I consider prototyping in a high-level language to be detailed design > anyway, which is what I really wanted to get at. I don't > think there are too > many mysteries about the high-level design of an XSL > formatter anyway; you > draw a couple of blocks and label them Formatter, Renderer, > etc etc. :-) OK, > OK, maybe not quite that simplistic, but by the time you get > down to the > problem areas in an XSL formatter it's detailed design. > > I don't discourage the use of UML but to be honest I've not > seen it used > much in real life for anything except class diagrams, or capturing > requirements, and fairly abstract at that. I will likely end > up describing > the final prototype with class diagrams and some dynamic diagrams for > documentation purposes, but I (personally) gain little from > using UML over a > prototype. > > Where the UML will come in most likely is when I look at the "final" > prototype and make a determination as to how to port its > lessons to C or > C++. Right now I am leaning towards C. > > Regards, > AHS > >
Re: XMLSpy - FOP
Matt, Put this line at the top of your batch file: @echo "1:[ %1 ] 2: [ %2 ] 3: [ %3 ] 4: [ %4 ] 5: [ %5 ] 6: [ %6 ] 7: [ %7 ] 8: [ %8 ] 9: [ %9 ]" > t.out Then look at t.out to see what XMLSpy is sending to the batch file. Then try the same sequence from the command line to figure out what's going on and tweak the batch file to make it work. (That's how I made the batch file in the first place.) This is what I get: 1:[ -q ] 2: [ -xml ] 3: [ "C:\Fop-0.20.1\tmp.xml" ] 4: [ -xsl ] 5: [ "C:\Fop-0.20.1\pdf_master.xsl" ] 6: [ -pdf ] 7: [ "C:\Fop-0.20.1\Output.pdf" ] 8: [ ] 9: [ ] Chuck Paussa Savino, Matt C wrote: Thanks Chuck, I see I can actually use your workaround to go straight from XML-PDF with XMLSpy. But my problem right now is I can't even get XMLSpy to run FOP on an FO file that I know works. I just get that same error every time. (Regular XSL transformation works fine by the way.) I keep thinking there's a space in my file path or something, but I can't find any. I'll let you know when I figure it out. By the way I was working on this because I wanted to get your markers example going. I finally just did it on the command line. It looks pretty cool. I'm trying to figure out if I can use it to solve my adding '(Continued)' to table headers problem or my spearately numbered sub-section problem. Matt Savino Senior Systems Analyst Quest Diagnostics Clinical Trials -Original Message- From: Chuck Paussa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's see Path to FOP bat file = C:\Fop-0.20.1\fopx.bat fopx.bat file = saxon -o test.fo %3 pdf_master.xsl @java -Xms256m -Xmx256m -cp build\fop.jar;lib\batik.jar;lib\xalan-2.0.0.jar;lib\xerces-1.2 .3.jar;lib\avalon-framework-4.0.jar;lib\logkit-1.0b4.jar;lib\j imi-1.0.jar org.apache.fop.apps.Fop -c conf/userconfig.xml %1 -fo test.fo %6 %7 %8 I guess I sort of got it to work but I had to go through an intermediate .fo file and I hard coded the xsl Chuck Savino, Matt C wrote: Has anyone gotten FO transformations to work on XMLSpy w/FOP .20.2? No matter what I try I keep getting the following error: "Output of external XSL converter: The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect." thx a lot, Matt Savino Senior Systems Analyst Quest Diagnostics Clinical Trials
RE: XMLSpy - FOP
> > So basically, the nuts are on the anvil? I hope no-one reads this > > mailing list. Or just run a search on Google in a few days. Better not put any fudges on your resume that can be contradicted by any post you've *ever* made to a newsgroup, mailing list or website. At least not if you have an uncommon name like mine. Matt Savino Senior Systems Analyst Quest Diagnostics Clinical Trials > -Original Message- > From: C Brian O'Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: XMLSpy - FOP > > > Random question, but is there incentive for a company to hire > someone to enhance FOP and release the updates to the public > domain? Are most of the developers employed to do this, or is > this done in their free time? > Brian > > On Wed, 27 February 2002, "Peter B. West" wrote: > > > > > Savino, Matt C wrote: > > > > > I regretted the tone of that last email as soon as > > >I spit it out. I'm just not having a very great day. I > know from watching > > >the fop-dev list for the last year or so that all the > active players on FOP > > >are very concientious, hard-working and know what they're > doing. Maybe you > > >can look at my little outburst as a rare window into the > frustrations that > > >some of the end users are feeling but have the tact to withhold. > > > > > I think your comments will be read in that light. > > > > >... > > > I've sort of become the chief FOP evangelist/programmer. > > > ... People are starting to look at my PDF solution. I'm > just afraid > > >they're going to look behind the curtain and see that I > can't generate five > > >10-page reports at once (or one 100-page report) on one > instance of Weblogic > > >running on $80k worth of hardware--w/o running out of > memory or coming to a > > >standstill. > > > > > So basically, the nuts are on the anvil? I hope no-one reads this > > mailing list. > > > > > > > >I guess even the roughest non-binding ETA on the redesign > might help some of > > >us sleep better at night - 6 mos? > > > > > *** > > > > > 1 year? > > > > > *** My guess. I think the design is getting towards > critical mass. See > > my other post responding to Arved. > > > > > 2 years? more? And just out of > > >curiosity, why are you starving to finish this - love? > future consulting > > >gigs? both? > > > > > Things slowed down a lot after dot.con, and here in > Brisbane they were > > slow to start with. I have a (voluntary) application for > FOP, and I had > > a need to learn Java to spruce up my skill set. Future > consulting? I > > suppose I can dream. > > > > Peter > > >
RE: XMLSpy - FOP
-Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 27, 2002 11:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: fop-dev Subject: Re: XMLSpy - FOP [ SNIP ] Let me just strongly endorse Arved's comment about the oxymoronic "UML design", as in "design by UML". What a bizarre idea. It must be something consultants do. -End Of Original Message- I should add, I attempted and rejected the use of UML in this particular instance. As I look back at it, this was more the fault of trying to use UML modelling tools on a 17" screen; by the time all the menus and side windows and toolbars have occupied screen real-estate you have a little quarter-screen window where you can visualize about 2 entire classes or a third of a reasonably useful sequence diagram. :-) So I gave up...the tools and my monitor failed, not the notation. I suspect that if I had used pencil and bristol board and/or a whteboard then UML would have worked out better. I consider prototyping in a high-level language to be detailed design anyway, which is what I really wanted to get at. I don't think there are too many mysteries about the high-level design of an XSL formatter anyway; you draw a couple of blocks and label them Formatter, Renderer, etc etc. :-) OK, OK, maybe not quite that simplistic, but by the time you get down to the problem areas in an XSL formatter it's detailed design. I don't discourage the use of UML but to be honest I've not seen it used much in real life for anything except class diagrams, or capturing requirements, and fairly abstract at that. I will likely end up describing the final prototype with class diagrams and some dynamic diagrams for documentation purposes, but I (personally) gain little from using UML over a prototype. Where the UML will come in most likely is when I look at the "final" prototype and make a determination as to how to port its lessons to C or C++. Right now I am leaning towards C. Regards, AHS
Re: XMLSpy - FOP
Savino, Matt C wrote: >Has anyone gotten FO transformations to work on XMLSpy w/FOP .20.2? No >matter what I try I keep getting the following error: > >"Output of external XSL converter: > >The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect." > Hi Matt, I had similar problems on Windows NT, when using FOP 0.20.1 and FOP 0.20.3rc. It works fine on Windows 2000, according to XMLSpy support it's a known bug, that FO-transformation doesn't work on Windows NT. Or is this problem specific to 0.20.2? Heinz
Re: XMLSpy - FOP
Arved et al, To clarify further: there are three re-design efforts going on. Keiron & Karen in Java, building on the existing code base. Arved doing a ground-up redesign in Perl (protptyping) and C or C++, as he has discussed. Me, in Java, doing a ground-up. Do not despair. If Flannery O'Connor is to be believed, Everything That Rises Must Converge. I believe that these design efforts will, if not converge, at least cross-fertilise one another considerably. You will probably have noticed that there is a lot of cross-talk between the principals. At the end of the day, I think that the best ideas will shake together in the bottom of the pan. However, I would hope for more. I can conceive of no reason why a common design will not work in Java, C, C++, Perl or any other language of choice. Implementation details may differ, but the same overall design should be realisable in any useful language. In that sense, I disagree with Arved. I think his work *is* contributing to the redesign of FOP. Obviously, I think mine is too. So, if you decide to get involved in xslfo-proc, the effort will not be wasted in terms of helping bring FOP to completion. Let me just strongly endorse Arved's comment about the oxymoronic "UML design", as in "design by UML". What a bizarre idea. It must be something consultants do. Peter Arved Sandstrom wrote: Hi, Matt Let me clarify. The redesign is what Keiron & Karen (primarily) are working on. It is a redesign for FOP. What I started last fall is another project, which is intended to produce a C/C++ XSL-FO formatter. This is called xslfo-proc, and is on Sourceforge. ... I did enough UML design last fall to realise that that was a waste of time. So a month ago I started working on a Perl prototype. I uploaded the first code yesterday ... I expect to have some pretty good layout happening within a month. I have no intentions of abandoning FOP, but the redesign for FOP was and is critical, and only so many people can usefully do that - two max, IMO. ... I am devoting most of my efforts to xslfo-proc - it has a different approach and I hope it complements FOP rather than competes with it. I'll second one specific comment of Peter's very strongly. I also believe that an XSL formatter project that is going to succeed has to tackle the whole problem. Formatting is not very modular, in other words. Not everything needs to be implemented right away but it sure needs to be considered, and a place for everything needs to be built in. The existing FOP shows us that retrofitting doesn't work.
Re: XMLSpy - FOP
Random question, but is there incentive for a company to hire someone to enhance FOP and release the updates to the public domain? Are most of the developers employed to do this, or is this done in their free time? Brian On Wed, 27 February 2002, "Peter B. West" wrote: > > Savino, Matt C wrote: > > > I regretted the tone of that last email as soon as > >I spit it out. I'm just not having a very great day. I know from watching > >the fop-dev list for the last year or so that all the active players on FOP > >are very concientious, hard-working and know what they're doing. Maybe you > >can look at my little outburst as a rare window into the frustrations that > >some of the end users are feeling but have the tact to withhold. > > > I think your comments will be read in that light. > > >... > > I've sort of become the chief FOP evangelist/programmer. > > ... People are starting to look at my PDF solution. I'm just afraid > >they're going to look behind the curtain and see that I can't generate five > >10-page reports at once (or one 100-page report) on one instance of Weblogic > >running on $80k worth of hardware--w/o running out of memory or coming to a > >standstill. > > > So basically, the nuts are on the anvil? I hope no-one reads this > mailing list. > > > > >I guess even the roughest non-binding ETA on the redesign might help some of > >us sleep better at night - 6 mos? > > > *** > > > 1 year? > > > *** My guess. I think the design is getting towards critical mass. See > my other post responding to Arved. > > > 2 years? more? And just out of > >curiosity, why are you starving to finish this - love? future consulting > >gigs? both? > > > Things slowed down a lot after dot.con, and here in Brisbane they were > slow to start with. I have a (voluntary) application for FOP, and I had > a need to learn Java to spruce up my skill set. Future consulting? I > suppose I can dream. > > Peter
Re: XMLSpy - FOP
Savino, Matt C wrote: I regretted the tone of that last email as soon as I spit it out. I'm just not having a very great day. I know from watching the fop-dev list for the last year or so that all the active players on FOP are very concientious, hard-working and know what they're doing. Maybe you can look at my little outburst as a rare window into the frustrations that some of the end users are feeling but have the tact to withhold. I think your comments will be read in that light. ... I've sort of become the chief FOP evangelist/programmer. ... People are starting to look at my PDF solution. I'm just afraid they're going to look behind the curtain and see that I can't generate five 10-page reports at once (or one 100-page report) on one instance of Weblogic running on $80k worth of hardware--w/o running out of memory or coming to a standstill. So basically, the nuts are on the anvil? I hope no-one reads this mailing list. I guess even the roughest non-binding ETA on the redesign might help some of us sleep better at night - 6 mos? *** 1 year? *** My guess. I think the design is getting towards critical mass. See my other post responding to Arved. 2 years? more? And just out of curiosity, why are you starving to finish this - love? future consulting gigs? both? Things slowed down a lot after dot.con, and here in Brisbane they were slow to start with. I have a (voluntary) application for FOP, and I had a need to learn Java to spruce up my skill set. Future consulting? I suppose I can dream. Peter
RE: XMLSpy - FOP
-Original Message- From: Savino, Matt C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 27, 2002 9:15 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: XMLSpy - FOP Thanks Peter. I'm really glad to hear some positive news about the redesign! I'll try to get on that list and check out the code. I like reading Perl, it's therapeutic when you have to deal with Java all day long. I'm sure FOP is a very tough problem. I regretted the tone of that last email as soon as I spit it out. I'm just not having a very great day. I know from watching the fop-dev list for the last year or so that all the active players on FOP are very concientious, hard-working and know what they're doing. Maybe you can look at my little outburst as a rare window into the frustrations that some of the end users are feeling but have the tact to withhold. [ SNIP ] -End Of Original Message- Hi, Matt Let me clarify. The redesign is what Keiron & Karen (primarily) are working on. It is a redesign for FOP. What I started last fall is another project, which is intended to produce a C/C++ XSL-FO formatter. This is called xslfo-proc, and is on Sourceforge. I had a number of reasons for diverting my energies from FOP, and they had to do with limited free time last summer (due to intense real work) and a general burnout with how complicated FOP had gotten. xslfo-proc got off to a slow start, mainly because the company I was working for in real life went bust in October, and it's only this month that I got back into it. I did enough UML design last fall to realise that that was a waste of time. So a month ago I started working on a Perl prototype. I uploaded the first code yesterday but please don't expect this to actually be doing any layout yet. There is a lot there already, though, and at my current pace I expect to have some pretty good layout happening within a month. I have no intentions of abandoning FOP, but the redesign for FOP was and is critical, and only so many people can usefully do that - two max, IMO. When the redesign started I was out of the loop, so now I am waiting like everyone else. In the meantime I am devoting most of my efforts to xslfo-proc - it has a different approach and I hope it complements FOP rather than competes with it. My intention further down the road is to fold it back into Apache when the codebase is mature, there is a community built up around it, and the time is right. I'll second one specific comment of Peter's very strongly. I also believe that an XSL formatter project that is going to succeed has to tackle the whole problem. Formatting is not very modular, in other words. Not everything needs to be implemented right away but it sure needs to be considered, and a place for everything needs to be built in. The existing FOP shows us that retrofitting doesn't work. I'll welcome your interest in the xslfo-proc project if you feel like a break from Java. I don't mind admitting that since I work with Java every day in real life that the opportunity to get back to Perl (and C down the road) was not an unpleasant thought. :-) Regards, Arved
RE: XMLSpy - FOP
Thanks Peter. I'm really glad to hear some positive news about the redesign! I'll try to get on that list and check out the code. I like reading Perl, it's therapeutic when you have to deal with Java all day long. I'm sure FOP is a very tough problem. I regretted the tone of that last email as soon as I spit it out. I'm just not having a very great day. I know from watching the fop-dev list for the last year or so that all the active players on FOP are very concientious, hard-working and know what they're doing. Maybe you can look at my little outburst as a rare window into the frustrations that some of the end users are feeling but have the tact to withhold. Just to give you an idea of my personal situation w/FOP, I work for a company of about 27,000 people. In the course of fighting to convince the higher-ups that we could do our little project just fine without Cognos or Crystal Reports, I've sort of become the chief FOP evangelist/programmer. (When you looked at our requirements and resources, building really did make more sense than buying--which is the whole promise of J2EE right?) We're trying to pull together a corporate culture that could have entire separate teams working on similar projects who didn't even know of the other's existstence. People are starting to look at my PDF solution. I'm just afraid they're going to look behind the curtain and see that I can't generate five 10-page reports at once (or one 100-page report) on one instance of Weblogic running on $80k worth of hardware--w/o running out of memory or coming to a standstill. I like where it sounds like you're going with the memory issues. I don't think the speed is a showstopper, but those out of memory issues sure are. I've upped my max-heap size to 768M. Anyone know of major pitfalls to this? (I have 1GB available per instance.) I guess even the roughest non-binding ETA on the redesign might help some of us sleep better at night - 6 mos? 1 year? 2 years? more? And just out of curiosity, why are you starving to finish this - love? future consulting gigs? both? Thanks again, that's all the rambling I have in me for now. Matt Savino Senior Systems Analyst Quest Diagnostics Clinical Trials > -Original Message- > From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: XMLSpy - FOP > > > Matt, > > I'm sure Arved will have something to say about this, but are you > subscribed to SourceForge's xslfo-proc list? Have you seen > Arved's perl > prototyping code? This is a *difficult* problem. A large > part of the > spec can be implemented relatively easily, but if you get the > design of > the first, say, 85% wrong, the last 15% becomes well-nigh impossible. > > I *have* been living off savings and credit cards for over 12 months > now, initially struggling with the original code base before > deciding to > start from scratch, and I can say that I am beginning to get > a handle on > the design. Good luck. > > Peter > > Savino, Matt C wrote: > > >I'm 99% sure there is a huge corporate demand for an FO-PDF > engine right > >NOW. Those guys at RenderX are nice but unresponsive, their > product is on > >par with FOP at best, and the're too busy to breathe selling $5k/CPU > >licenses! > > > >I'm about ready to quit and starting working on one myself. > Anyone who knows > >the PDF spec inside and out and can live off savings or > credit cards for 6 > >months is welcome to join. > > > > >
Re: XMLSpy - FOP
Matt, I'm sure Arved will have something to say about this, but are you subscribed to SourceForge's xslfo-proc list? Have you seen Arved's perl prototyping code? This is a *difficult* problem. A large part of the spec can be implemented relatively easily, but if you get the design of the first, say, 85% wrong, the last 15% becomes well-nigh impossible. I *have* been living off savings and credit cards for over 12 months now, initially struggling with the original code base before deciding to start from scratch, and I can say that I am beginning to get a handle on the design. Good luck. Peter Savino, Matt C wrote: I'm 99% sure there is a huge corporate demand for an FO-PDF engine right NOW. Those guys at RenderX are nice but unresponsive, their product is on par with FOP at best, and the're too busy to breathe selling $5k/CPU licenses! I'm about ready to quit and starting working on one myself. Anyone who knows the PDF spec inside and out and can live off savings or credit cards for 6 months is welcome to join.
RE: XMLSpy - FOP
Thanks Chuck, I see I can actually use your workaround to go straight from XML-PDF with XMLSpy. But my problem right now is I can't even get XMLSpy to run FOP on an FO file that I know works. I just get that same error every time. (Regular XSL transformation works fine by the way.) I keep thinking there's a space in my file path or something, but I can't find any. I'll let you know when I figure it out. By the way I was working on this because I wanted to get your markers example going. I finally just did it on the command line. It looks pretty cool. I'm trying to figure out if I can use it to solve my adding '(Continued)' to table headers problem or my spearately numbered sub-section problem. Too bad markers totally broken in .20.3rc. Apparently we're lucky to have them in .20.2. Maybe I'm just crannky today, but does it seem to anyone else like FOP is going backward a little? Between breaking existing functionality on a minor bug-fix build, tacking on a big logging package that throws errors if it's not happy, and a redesign release date sometime in 2004 if we're lucky, I'm starting to wonder. I realize it's free and all. But unless FOP was never intended as anything more than an exercise in architecture, there has to be an end user in mind at some point. Even a whiny pain in the rear like me :o I'm 99% sure there is a huge corporate demand for an FO-PDF engine right NOW. Those guys at RenderX are nice but unresponsive, their product is on par with FOP at best, and the're too busy to breathe selling $5k/CPU licenses! I'm about ready to quit and starting working on one myself. Anyone who knows the PDF spec inside and out and can live off savings or credit cards for 6 months is welcome to join. Matt Savino Senior Systems Analyst Quest Diagnostics Clinical Trials > -Original Message- > From: Chuck Paussa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: XMLSpy - FOP > > > Let's see > > Path to FOP bat file = C:\Fop-0.20.1\fopx.bat > > fopx.bat file = > > saxon -o test.fo %3 pdf_master.xsl > @java -Xms256m -Xmx256m -cp > build\fop.jar;lib\batik.jar;lib\xalan-2.0.0.jar;lib\xerces-1.2 > .3.jar;lib\avalon-framework-4.0.jar;lib\logkit-1.0b4.jar;lib\j > imi-1.0.jar > org.apache.fop.apps.Fop -c conf/userconfig.xml %1 -fo test.fo %6 %7 %8 > > I guess I sort of got it to work but I had to go through an > intermediate > .fo file and I hard coded the xsl > > Chuck > > Savino, Matt C wrote: > > >Has anyone gotten FO transformations to work on XMLSpy w/FOP > .20.2? No > >matter what I try I keep getting the following error: > > > >"Output of external XSL converter: > > > >The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect." > > > >thx a lot, > > > >Matt Savino > >Senior Systems Analyst > >Quest Diagnostics Clinical Trials > > > > > > > > > >
Re: XMLSpy - FOP
Let's see Path to FOP bat file = C:\Fop-0.20.1\fopx.bat fopx.bat file = saxon -o test.fo %3 pdf_master.xsl @java -Xms256m -Xmx256m -cp build\fop.jar;lib\batik.jar;lib\xalan-2.0.0.jar;lib\xerces-1.2.3.jar;lib\avalon-framework-4.0.jar;lib\logkit-1.0b4.jar;lib\jimi-1.0.jar org.apache.fop.apps.Fop -c conf/userconfig.xml %1 -fo test.fo %6 %7 %8 I guess I sort of got it to work but I had to go through an intermediate .fo file and I hard coded the xsl Chuck Savino, Matt C wrote: Has anyone gotten FO transformations to work on XMLSpy w/FOP .20.2? No matter what I try I keep getting the following error: "Output of external XSL converter: The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect." thx a lot, Matt Savino Senior Systems Analyst Quest Diagnostics Clinical Trials
