> On 10 May 2016, at 12:49, Iván Ridao Freitas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, that's the case but I guess no one on the other side (FOP) is going to > update the code to support PDFBox 2.0. In my case, I depend on the latest > PDFBox version.
That’s unfortunate. I guess you could run batik’s SVG to PDF conversion via the command line and have it use PDFBox 1.8 via the classpath. Then you can keep using 2.0 for your code. — John > Ivan > > > On 10/5/2016 4:12 p. m., John Hewson wrote: >> Ah, so the pdf-transcoder jar of Batik depends upon FOP, which in turn >> depends upon FontBox. But Maven should handle that for you. Perhaps the >> issue is that your own code depends upon PDFBox 2.0 while Batik (via FOP) >> depends upon PDFBox 1.8? >> >> — John > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
