xmlgraphics-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <...@jeremias-maerki.ch>
Subject Re: FOP's new image package in Commons?
Date Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:21:15 GMT
On 13.12.2007 12:06:18 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I’m all for moving the new image loading package to XML Graphics 
> Commons. Nothing more to say! Your arguments are convincing.
> 
> Other comments inline.
> 
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > On 13.12.2007 07:46:14 The Web Maestro wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >> In fact, I'm wondering if we don't put more emphasis on the Graphics
> >> part of 'Apache XML Graphics Project' in our mission:
> >>
> >>   The Apache XML Graphics Project is responsible for software
> >>   licensed to the Apache Software Foundation  intended for the
> >>   creation & maintenance of:
> >>
> >>       * the conversion of XML formats to graphical output
> >>       * related software components
> > 
> > Graphics are an important part of what we do here. I realize that XML
> > Graphics Commons has not much to do with XML (except for the XMP part).
> > This is a topic that has been raised before and with the move of font
> > and PDF code to Commons, this will probably be reinforced. So it's
> > absolutely valid to think about different routes. However, that would
> > again generate more work and the factorization of the common parts into
> > a Commons alone creates enough work. At any rate, we're still operating
> > within the limits of the project charter, but if anyone from the outside
> > comes and proposes to move certain components to another, to-be-created
> > Apache project, I wouldn't have a problem with that. At the moment, it's
> > just us caring for the code so I don't see a need to do anything. I'd
> > say: let's concentrate on a clean dependency tree first.
> 
> I fully agree. Why not explaining the name like this: the “XML Graphics” 
> in “XML Graphics Commons” does not so much refers to code inside this 
> project that deals with XML, as to the two graphical XML formats 
> implemented by the projects that depend on it (Batik and FOP). We could 
> have named it “SVG & XSL-FO Commons” as well, but it’s just more elegant 
> that way (and extensible, we won’t have to rename it one day into 
> “MathML & SVG & XSL-FO Commons”...).
> It happens that both those graphical XML formats needs components like 
> image or font loading, which themselves have little to do with XML.
> Isn’t that the way it should have always been interpreted?  O:-)

Sure. But naming something is always tricky.

> <snip/>
> >> On the logging front, isn't it possible to code the Logging
> >> dependencies such that you only load the Logging functionality if it's
> >> needed/called?
> > 
> > Source code pre-processing. Shudder. Byte code magic. Hmm. :-/ Still,
> > I'm glad Java doesn't have "features" like C or ObjectPascal to
> > include/exclude code parts at compile time.
> 
> If the Batik side is really reluctant to introduce a dependency over 
> Commons Logging, and now that we use Java 1.4 as a minimal requirement, 
> there’s the option of converting the Commons Logging statements into the 
> Java logging framework, right?

Hmmmm. What with the people who prefer Log4J and want everything logged
there? Commons Logging at least provides a switching central to route
the log traffic where you want it. I don't think that's so easy (and
readily available) with java.util.logging as with Commons Logging.


Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org


Mime
View raw message