Keiron Liddle wrote:
A very rough start at some tasks for FOP here:
http://codeconsult.ch/wiki/index.php/FopTasks
I'm new to this wiki stuff, so see what happens.
Keiron, can you place the link somewhere in the dev docs for memory, please?
--
Oleg Tkachenko
eXperanto team
Multiconn
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 11:37, Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
Keiron, can you place the link somewhere in the dev docs for memory, please?
Sure. Done.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL
Hi Arved,
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 20:30, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
The feeling I got from my prototype is that there is not much commonality.
Markers - there is no logic here that has anything to do with layout, per
se. The content goes into a static-content and hence does not influence page
Responses below.
-Original Message-
From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: December 10, 2002 5:56 AM
To: FOP
Subject: RE: Redesign issues
Hi Arved,
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 20:30, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
The feeling I got from my prototype is that there is not much
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 17:26, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Incidentally, I still think that the way markers are described in the spec
is vague and confusing. Perhaps we should hammer this out.
Agreed.
I still have figured out what it really means.
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
I actually helped push for this last year - the notion of separate layout
managers. I was strongly influenced by the mess that FOP code had become at
the time, and really thought that layout should be taken out of the FOs
themselves; that the FO's, in a sense, were (or
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 01:00, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
I actually helped push for this last year - the notion of separate layout
managers. I was strongly influenced by the mess that FOP code had become at
the time, and really thought that layout should be taken out of the FOs
themselves; that the
Hi Joerg,
These are the issues that you have mentioned before.
It is still essentially only attacking two methods (and supporting
classes).
If you have a better design, then do it.
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 00:16, J.Pietschmann wrote:
deep inheritance hierarchies. There is only so much someone can
On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 15:43, Rhett Aultman wrote:
We have a Wiki that seems to have been a good way of quickly throwing up ideas for
style guidelines and voting on them. Why don't we do the same thing here? We could
throw up our ideas, try to sort them into lofty, long term stuff and
Keiron Liddle wrote:
I still believe that it is useful to have the layout managers separate
from the fo tree. There are a number of reasons that come to mind. It is
possible to independantly change layout managers. Certain fo's aren't
directly in the same hierarchy: markers, undefined table
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: December 9, 2002 8:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Redesign issues
Keiron Liddle wrote:
I still believe that it is useful to have the layout managers separate
from the fo tree
Keiron Liddle wrote:
These are the issues that you have mentioned before.
It is still essentially only attacking two methods (and supporting
classes).
Unfortunately, these are the core methods, essential for understanding
the whole approach.
If you have a better design, then do it.
I put a
Response below.
-Original Message-
From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Redesign issues
Keiron Liddle wrote:
These are the issues that you have mentioned before.
It is still essentially only attacking
Response below.
-Original Message-
From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: December 7, 2002 7:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Redesign issues
[ SNIP ]
Now the biggest issue: the layout managers itself. At the first
glance it is
not obvious why they should
Keiron Liddle wrote:
As far as I am concerned it is largely irrelevant whether the particular
layout design is 100% correct.
There will never be a design which is 100% correct. However, some designs
are easier to comprehend than others. The HEAD design has a few stumbling
blocks for beginners.
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 15:28, Rhett Aultman wrote:
This is something I'd really like to see hashed out better. We're winding down on
the maintenance brach. I've read a majority of the source in HEAD other than the
renderers (which I don't feel qualified or interested in, anyway), and I
Response below.
-Original Message-
From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Fri 12/6/2002 6:05 AM
To: FOP
Cc:
Subject: RE: Redesign issues
I previously said:
My personal problems aside
Karen Lease wrote:
Peter,
...
... I will make a few comments on the redesign
issue. I agree with Arved that we certainly have some large problems to
face. As he points out, the mainstream redesign suffers from not being
understood and therefore from a lack of active contributors.
...
Responses below.
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:27 PM
To: fop-dev
Subject: Redesign issues
This is the question that everyone has to answer. Blind faith that that
the problem can be solved by simply hurling onself
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:01, Peter B. West wrote:
There is an implication in what you are saying that you do have the
direction forward for the FO processor internalised, so to speak,
and
that a complete FO processor is, as Christian says, just a matter of
time. I, and I suspect Arved,
Keiron Liddle wrote:
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:01, Peter B. West wrote:
There is an implication in what you are saying that you do have the
direction forward for the FO processor internalised, so to speak,
and
that a complete FO processor is, as Christian says, just a matter of
time. I, and
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
You're being absolutely honest, which is cool - I'll be absolutely honest
also. It seems to me like the mainstream rewrite is in trouble. Very few
people understand it or have [clearly] bought into it. This is no comment on
its technical merits, by any means.
OTOH, only
22 matches
Mail list logo
