Hi, This is my opinion for the 3 questions :
1) I think xmpbox and preflight should be provided as jars because they can be used standalone. Moving the application validation could be a good idea but it will increase the number of dependency of pdfbox-app... So ... I do not know which choice is the best. 2) I think we should remove the "padaf" from the package name. The result will something like other part of the application : org.apache.jempbox org.apache.pdfbox org.apache.pdfbox 3) The new modules must be modified to use the same coding rules. I can work on that point. I looked for these rules when we proposed padaf to pdfbox but did not find anything. Is there something defined somewhere ? KR, Guillaume On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Andreas Lehmkuehler <andr...@lehmi.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I guess everybody agrees on the fact that a new PDFBox release is overdue! > > There are a lot of improvements and bugfixes in our queue waiting to be > released. > I'm planing to act as release manager and cut a new release based on the > current trunk in round about 2 weeks from now. > > I'd like to include preflight and xmpbox into this release, but there are > some questions we should discuss before. > > 1.) > How should we provide the "new" parts? As jar similar to the other parts, > but > what about the validate-application? Should we move it to the pdfbox-app or > should we create a preflight-app which could be used as standalone jar? > > 2.) > Eric remove the padaf packname from preflight. What about xmpbox, should we > remove the padaf packagename as well? > > 3.) > preflight/xmpbox and pdfbox are using different formatting rules (tab vs. > spaces, brace positions etc). Should we just use the checkstyle rules or > should we first discuss on how to format our codebase based on the existing > checkstyle rules? > > > WDYT? > > > BR > Andreas Lehmkühler
