One area where we could make good use of avalon framework is the
configuration, currently we have our own implementation of some
configuration classes. Using their implementation would mean it is better
tested and used and should be a help.
Some of the other interfaces/classes may not be as useful.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:08:53 COFFMAN Steven wrote:
> FOP needs at all levels the ability to log errors and messages.
> System.out
> is fine for CLI applications, but not for most embedded applications or
> servers. We could have used Log4J instead, but the rest of Apache XML is
> using LogKit and it suited our needs.
>
> Avalon is the place where common Design Patterns are implemented as a
> common
> component repository. With the combined might of all our projects, we can
> have confidence that every component is the best designed and best
> implemented possible, where no one project would have the resources to do
> so.
>
> You are correct that it is theoretically possible to make FOP faster and
> lighter without using any extra libraries like Avalon. If we made our own
> custom XML parser optimized for FO, that would also be true, but we still
> use Xalan and Xerces. We just don't have the resources or interest in
> pursuing it.
> -Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Burkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 4:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Avalon?
>
>
> Hi,
> In CVS we have org.apache.fop.apps.Driver implementing the
>
> org.apache.avalon.framework.logger.Loggable interface.
>
> Is there a good reason we are dragging Avalon into our core code
> base?
>
> Maybe someone should extend the Driver class with AvalonDriver so
> that us
> client side developers do not have to get involved with the extra server
> side libraries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
