Andreas, no argument from me against what you are proposing and also Joerg in [1]. We can still have a Driver.java for backwards compatibility for those who want to "plug and play" either in the product, or in a separate jar (fop-compat.jar?), or just here in BugZilla.
Manuel [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=108947697611032&w=2 On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 02:20 am, Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > On Jul 30, 2005, at 17:34, Manuel Mall wrote (on bugzilla): > > Manuel, > Devs, > > > To be able to simply replace a 0.20.5 fop.jar with 1.0dev fop.jar I > > have written > > a backwards compatible apps.Driver.java class. Everything in the class > > has been > > labelled as deprecated. > > FWIW: Personally, besides the compatibility issue, I'm not too happy > with the current situation where the very same class is used for both > command-line and embedded use (Fop.java) --one class acts both as a > standalone application and as a component. > That's considered an anti-pattern they call "Subversion of Control" in > Avalon terminology[1] :-) > > I've been checking the discussion on fop-dev concerning the removal of > Driver[2]. From the looks of it, at least one developer had similar > reservations about removing it. It's a pity the discussion itself > remained rather superficial. > > > Cheers, > > Andreas > > [1] http://excalibur.apache.org/framework/component-design.html > [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=108942539604883&w=2
