Why used FOP instead of...
I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am one) are using FO rather than products such as Crystal Reports or other such software (anyone Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new technology ? Thanks for any hints (in private since this is off-topic) Patrick Andries
Re: Why used FOP instead of...
FOP does almost all we need. What's missing can be added, since it's OpenSource, right? We're currently working on a project for an insurance company where Compuset is used and is to be replaced by an XML/XSLT/XSL:FO-based approach. One of the reasons for this decision was using freely available standards like XML, XSLT, XSL:FO etc. What you currently get when you're using proprietary software is a beautiful WYSIWYG editor. OK, that's missing for XSLT/XSL:FO but that doesn't matter too much where our project are targeted. FOA, XSLFast etc. are a good start but not yet really useful IMO. Another thing we're doing is provide high-volume printing services, and one of our outsourcing customers is using Jetform with the result that we had to write code that patches the PostScript-Files delivered so we could really use them. And that's just one of many problem they had in that project. Well, there's more to tell, but I got to work... I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am one) are using FO rather than products such as Crystal Reports or other such software (anyone Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new technology ? Thanks for any hints (in private since this is off-topic) Cheers, Jeremias Märki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OUTLINE AG Postfach 3954 - Rhynauerstr. 15 - CH-6002 Luzern Fon +41 (41) 317 2020 - Fax +41 (41) 317 2029 Internet http://www.outline.ch
Re: Why used FOP instead of...
When I started working with Docbook, Passivetex was a mistery to me and RenderX was not on the map yet. I've set up all my tool chains to work with Fop as the PDF/PS/PCL rederer so I don't see a reason to change. However there are still times when I'm about to shell out money and spend it on RenderX because of their more complete support of the FO specification, but I'd rather wait and see where FOP goes from where we are right now. Carlos On 01/30/02 6:42, Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am one) are using FO rather than products such as Crystal Reports or other such software (anyone Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new technology ? Thanks for any hints (in private since this is off-topic) Patrick Andries -- Carlos E. Araya ---+ WebCT Administrator/Trainer P | California Virtual Campus - | C/O De Anza College G | 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd ---+ Cupertino, CA 95014 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] web http://www.cvc1.org/ (work) http://www.silverwolf-net.net (personal) phone 408 257 0420 (work) PGP Fingerprint:E629 5DFD 7EAE 4995 E9D7 3D2F 5A9F 0CE7 DFE7 1756 We cannot put off living until we are ready. The most salient characteristic of life is its coerciveness: it is always urgent, 'here and now' without any possible postponement. Life is fired at us point blank. Jose Ortega Y Gasset
Re: Why used FOP instead of...
Interesting, I also have experience in Compuset. Do you known Mr. Bulman ? Are you happy with FO's speed ? So do I understand that Jetform does not produce clean PS ? Isn't it easier to use as FO (I do nor really know Jetform) ? Is it expensive ? Thanks a lot (when you have some time). Danke im voraus, Patrick Andries Jeremias Maerki wrote: FOP does almost all we need. What's missing can be added, since it'sOpenSource, right?We're currently working on a project for an insurance company whereCompuset is used and is to be replaced by an XML/XSLT/XSL:FO-basedapproach. One of the reasons for this decision was using freelyavailable standards like XML, XSLT, XSL:FO etc. What you currently getwhen you're using proprietary software is a beautiful WYSIWYG editor. OK,that's missing for XSLT/XSL:FO but that doesn't matter too much whereour project are targeted. FOA, XSLFast etc. are a good start but not yetreally useful IMO.Another thing we're doing is provide high-volume printing services, andone of our outsourcing customers is using Jetform with the result thatwe had to write code that patches the PostScript-Files delivered so wecould really use them. And that's just one of many problem they had inthat project.Well, there's more to te ll, but I got to work... I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am one) are using FO rather than products such as Crystal Reports or other such software (anyone Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new technology ?Thanks for any hints (in private since this is off-topic) Cheers,Jeremias Mrkimailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]OUTLINE AGPostfach 3954 - Rhynauerstr. 15 - CH-6002 LuzernFon +41 (41) 317 2020 - Fax +41 (41) 317 2029Internet http://www.outline.ch
Re: Why used FOP instead of...
Interesting, I also have experience in Compuset. Do you known Mr. Bulman ? I personally don't have any experience with Compuset. Sorry. Are you happy with FO's speed ? No. But that doesn't matter so much at the moment, because we will start small and have designed our solution to be scalable (CPU power doesn't cost much). I expect the redesign to improve performance and we're determined to contribute some more work to FOP this year when we get air to breathe again (well, maybe not too much in the performance part, I guess). So do I understand that Jetform does not produce clean PS ? Isn't it easier to use as FO (I do nor really know Jetform) ? Is it expensive ? No DSC, at least. And the paper bin code is made for an HP laser printer, not for a Xerox 4635. Jetform's support seems to be quite bad, too, from what I've heard. Don't know about the price, though. Again, no experience in that field. The customer uses Jetform, not us. Cheers, Jeremias Märki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OUTLINE AG Postfach 3954 - Rhynauerstr. 15 - CH-6002 Luzern Fon +41 (41) 317 2020 - Fax +41 (41) 317 2029 Internet http://www.outline.ch
Re: Why used FOP instead of...
FO offers a way to produce high quality documents way beyond Crystal Reports possibility. If your needs are entirely fullfiled by tools like Crystal Report, I suggest you stick to it or advise your customer/user to do so. On the other hand, If you have to deal with more sophisticated needs, or you can not be sure of the near future demand of your customer / user or you have to inter operate with other software you can then think about a more portable solution. FO offers independancy. You mention FOP, I agree it does not cover all FO, and that speed and memory issues exist. Not only FOP is not the only FO implementation, but I am sure this product will do good trhough redesign. The problem is FO adress a much larger problem than is my current reporting tool is ok ?. It is made to offer open and independant printing / rendering solution over a wide range of needs / situation. Enthousiasm comes from the near future possibility of FO. Technology, wether new or old is never the issue. My answer is toward the list, because I think it is not so off-topic. At 09:42 30/01/2002 -0500, you wrote: I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am one) are using FO rather than products such as Crystal Reports or other such software (anyone Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new technology ?
