xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Cumiskey <adrian.cumis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: URIResolver for svg
Date Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:25:00 GMT
I have submitted a patch 
(http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42278) which factors 
out resolving from the FopFactory.  This is at least a start towards 
this aim of Batik and Fop sharing this same core functionality.  I've 
only touched the surface of Batik so far, but this patch should go 
*some* way towards breaking out the dependencies.

I imagine in the longer term the basic URI resolution should maybe go in 
Batik with a specialisation of this class in FOP.  What does everybody 
else think?

Adrian Cumiskey.

> On 27.04.2007 12:50:35 Peter wrote:
>> Thanks Jeremias. Appreciate you take the time to help out.
>>
>>>> Is that the (only) way to tell to Batik to do something user specific
>>> when
>>>> resolving relative URI's?
>>> This is the wrong place to ask this question.
>> I guess the question should have been "is there anyway I can tell fop to
>> tell batik..."
>>
>> I understand FOP and Batik are separate projects, but as a FOP user who
>> wants to embed svg in fo that should not matter....in a perfect world that
>> is.
> 
> My point is that before you can think about how to pass on a URIResolver
> to Batik from inside FOP, you have to figure out how you can integrate a
> URIResolver into Batik in the first place. That's why I gave you the
> links to Cocoon's Batik block. It can provide you with some ideas.
> 
>>>> Is there (any other) a way I can have FOP and Batik use the same
>>> URIResolver
>>>> interface?
>>> Not at this time. Batik doesn't use URIResolver. You could put in an RFE
>>> with Batik or try to add direct support for it in Batik's source code.
>>>
>> What if FOP would invoke whatever Batik mechanism available to offer its end
>> user a URIResolver based approach driven through the FOP API. Assume I would
>> spend a bit of time trying to implement that, would it stand a chance to get
>> adopted? 
> 
> Why whouldn't it? The only problem is resources inside the FOP team to
> review and apply patches in due time. But good contributions are always
> welcome. I guess in the ideal world one would get Batik to integrate
> URIResolver functionality directly into the code. But if there's a clean
> way to do an adapter, that's fine, too.
> 
> So, my tip is to concentrate on Batik first, and on FOP second.
> 
> Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org


Mime
View raw message