I'd rather we have pluggable LayoutManagers -- 1.0's emphasis and I think our previous agreement with Finn/Simon -- than have pluggable Area objects (where much of layout used to be in 0.20.5.) I'm not sure if Fop can realistically handle both at this time.
As for complexity, in our LM's, with Tybor's proposed change, instead of just: curBlockArea = new Block(); we would now have: curBlockArea = (Block) fobj.getUserAgent(). getAreaFactory().create(Block.class, fobj, this); instead of: viewportBlockArea = new BlockViewport(); we would now have: viewportBlockArea = (BlockViewport) fobj.getUserAgent() .getAreaFactory().create (BlockViewport.class, fobj, this); over and over again. The question here seems to be: should we add this additional complexity to our system *now* so Tybor doesn't need to rewrite code every week he does a cvs update? Or have him tolerate it until 1.0 is out (when presumably, he can rely on a production release and not need to update every week.) Personally speaking, I am much more amenable to adding some complexity (LM Makers, for example, or opening up our validation) if it helps out Finn's work, because of the sheer weight of contributions he adds to Fop. (We slow him down, we slow down Fop.) Making these changes for someone who isn't submitting contributions, however, is less of a concern for me. If a user is going to propose a change that would slow down system development, we should be getting some work to compensate for it, at least during this time while we are still building the system. My inclination is to have him place this patch in Bugzilla, and let's wait until we have others requesting it (vs. those who would rather have LM's pluggable.) In the meantime, I think it would be best for everyone to keep layout as simple as we can until it is done. I am open to others' opinions however. Glen --- Tibor Vyletel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Fopsters, > > I have attached first phase (a working example) of > the refactoring I was > talking about in my previous mails. Please let me > know, if this change is > acceptable for you. If it is, I will finish it > afterwards. >
