Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Here are a couple. I remembered these exchanges, and was wondering whether you might mention them in this context.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 should be) just value objects.I worked on an xslfo-proc prototype (in Perl) for months earlier this year. I started out with the layout manager idea. It became increasingly clear to me that there was in fact a natural 1-1 correspondence between managers and FOs. I had a prototype, incidentally, which properly handled reference-orientation in all regions, and even took RO down to block-containers, something which no implementation (not FOP, not XEP, not XSLFormatter, not XFC) has correctly done. Unless Epic handles RO correctly, which I don't know. It's also interesting, Joerg, that you should mention a "hard to understand" layout manager class hierarchy...this is also what inevitably developed in my prototype. So at some point (and I think there are comments and emails to support this) I eventually came back to the thought that there is nothing wrong with individual FOs being able to do their own layout. Which is actually the existing "maintenance stream" FOP model.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=740835&forum_id=450
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=1780417
Peter
--
Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
