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 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.
Here are a couple. I remembered these exchanges, and was wondering whether you might mention them in this context.

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]

Reply via email to