Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xmlgraphics-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 75565 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2010 09:04:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2010 09:04:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 14135 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jul 2010 09:04:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@xmlgraphics.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@xmlgraphics.apache.org Received: (qmail 14122 invoked by uid 99); 2 Jul 2010 09:04:41 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:04:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [213.239.215.103] (HELO tux17.hoststar.ch) (213.239.215.103) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:04:32 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.33] (194-230-63-144.static.adslpremium.ch [194.230.63.144]) (authenticated bits=0) by tux17.hoststar.ch (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o6294ARH021389 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:04:13 +0200 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:04:20 +0200 From: Jeremias Maerki To: general@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: Status of the new color infrastructure In-Reply-To: <20100702081209.GA3474@leverkruid.eu> References: <20100630222431.8A24.60BA733C@jeremias-maerki.ch> <20100702081209.GA3474@leverkruid.eu> Message-Id: <20100702104436.034F.60BA733C@jeremias-maerki.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.02 [en] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 02.07.2010 10:12:09 Simon Pepping wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:48:26PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > On 30.06.2010 21:13:10 Simon Pepping wrote: > > Except for the little thing called backwards-compatibility. ColorExt is > > new in XGC and we already know it has to change in an incompatible way > > before its first release. The problem is that this has ripples into FOP. > > That's why we have to at least shortly discuss it. >=20 > That is not a good situation indeed. > =20 > > But I've just thought of a better alternative: > > Moving (!) ColorExt back to FOP where it was and moving > > GrayScaleConverter to FOP solves the whole problem with minimal effort > > in FOP Trunk. The ColorConverter interface is fine as it is and can sta= y > > there. This will also restore backwards-compatibility for FOP's ColorEx= t > > and CMYKColorSpace classes which were already present in 0.95 but > > removed instead of deprecated. That would take half an hour at most > > tomorrow morning. >=20 > I do not know the details of the color work, so I only have some > general considerations. Moving functionality back to FOP, why is that > not a bad thing? Because it avoids the short life-time of ColorExt in XGC (as it would be deprecated in XGC 1.5). I see no necessity for ColorExt to be in XGC right now. It came over as a side-effect of the ColorConverter idea (which is a good one). Moving color functionality to XGC is not a bad thing per se, but the current ColorExt in XGC even contains FOP-specific code (toFunctionCall()) which Batik will never use. The current ColorExt is not a class that is well thought through which became apparent only since I've had a concentrated look at colors in general and the upcoming SVG Color 1.2 and XSL-FO 2.0 specs. > When do you want to merge your color work into fop > trunk, before or after the release? To be on the safe side: after the release. I don't mind working off unreleased code and the new additions might require some fine-tuning when I've added SVG Color 1.2 support to Batik. > If after, can things stay as they > are now in both xgc and fop? Yes, in which case I would deprecate ColorExt in XGC and introduce ColorWithAlternatives instead. But I'd prefer not putting XGC's ColorExt in XGC 1.4. > Will you use an upgraded xgc for your > color work? Yes. I want a common color infrastructure for both Batik and FOP. That's why I made color branches for both XGC and FOP. This won't collide with anything until it's finished and properly tested. ******************** In the end, I think we have two valid choices: 1. Leave everything as is and do the release right now without the new color infrastructure and deprecate XGC's ColorExt immediately in the color branch. This will mean that ColorExt in XGC will have lived only in the XGC 1.4 release but be deprecated in the next. 2. Move ColorExt back to FOP as I proposed. Batik does not use XGC right now anyway so there's no real benefit of rushing ColorExt into XGC. Furthermore, Batik would never use ColorExt as is. It's just too ugly IMO. FOP will later move from using it's ColorExt to XGC's ColorWithAlternatives. I'm strongly in favor of option 2. As I mentioned, I could make this happen in less than an hour. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org