Re: Failing tests
Same here. Christian, can you give us some details about your environment? JDK version, OS, Ant Version... On 14.11.2005 03:38:58 Manuel Mall wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:19 am, Christian Geisert wrote: snip/ In BugZilla terminology: WORKSFORME And a dozen more with the same error. Christian Manuel Jeremias Maerki
Re: Failing tests
Jeremias Maerki schrieb: Same here. Christian, can you give us some details about your environment? JDK version, OS, Ant Version... I just tried it with a fresh checkout and it worked. Sorry for the noise. Christian
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37330] - [PATCH] FOP Bridges not properly registered with Batik
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37330. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37330 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16956|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-14 14:12 --- Created an attachment (id=16962) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16962action=view) Update to tweak.patch that works. This fixes a stupid merge mistake. Sorry for the confusion. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Re: System.err
This is done now. Some printStackTrace() calls are left mainly in the Graphics2D implementations. That will be looked at when we move them to Commons. We'll have quite a pile of work before us to improve the whole exception handling. But that's not for today. Thanks for reminding us about fixing the console output, Nils. On 14.11.2005 11:43:57 Jeremias Maerki wrote: FYI, I'm working on that. The strategy is to remove stray System.out/err or Exception.printStackTrace() calls where possible, or pipe them to a logger instead. Some of those will need some additional work in the area of exception handling. On 13.11.2005 23:37:17 Nils Meier wrote: Hello just wanted to bring your attention to the fact that there's still quite a bit of System.err calls in FOP code. Is there a strategy for getting rid of those before the release? Thanks Nils Jeremias Maerki Jeremias Maerki
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37236] - [PATCH] Fix gradients and patterns
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37236. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37236 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-14 14:29 --- (In reply to comment #11) Patch #10 applied. Thanks. I'm looking forward to moving the Transcoders out after the FOP release. :-) It will likely make this stuff easier to track. Is there anything outstanding concerning this bug or can we close it? As I see it there are two outstanding issues: 1) 'Complex' patterns on Text - While it is probably a 5% case it's bad that things won't work. 2) The overflow for pattern case being commented out. I would lean towards saying this is still broken enough to leave the bug open, but it's not my bug DB (so to speak). Having it open makes it at least possible that someone will have an answer to their question. It starts to get confusing which patches are to be applied and so on. Yes, I strongly considered going to a single PDFTranscoder patch instead of trying to track everything seperately. I assume you'll also help track the currently commented part that we'll have to uncomment as soon as we can rely on a later Batik version. I'll try and make sure of it. What do you think of a Batik 1.6.1 release? There are a number of small but significant improvements in Batik since 1.6.1. The real hurdle would be straightening out the XML lib lincensing (which really needs to be fixed anyways). -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37330] - [PATCH] FOP Bridges not properly registered with Batik
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37330. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37330 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-14 17:03 --- Got the little bugger. :-) No more clipped text when painted through the PDF text painter: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=344148view=rev -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37236] - [PATCH] Fix gradients and patterns
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37236. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37236 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-14 17:07 --- (In reply to comment #12) snip/ Is there anything outstanding concerning this bug or can we close it? As I see it there are two outstanding issues: 1) 'Complex' patterns on Text - While it is probably a 5% case it's bad that things won't work. 2) The overflow for pattern case being commented out. I would lean towards saying this is still broken enough to leave the bug open, but it's not my bug DB (so to speak). Having it open makes it at least possible that someone will have an answer to their question. Ok. snip/ I assume you'll also help track the currently commented part that we'll have to uncomment as soon as we can rely on a later Batik version. I'll try and make sure of it. What do you think of a Batik 1.6.1 release? There are a number of small but significant improvements in Batik since 1.6.1. The real hurdle would be straightening out the XML lib lincensing (which really needs to be fixed anyways). It's on my list to help you with the XML libs as soon as the FOP release is off my desk. Anyway, I think a Batik 1.6.1 is a good idea. A lot of things have been done since the last release. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Re: Preparing for the first release
Manuel Mall schrieb: [..] IMHO there should be a changes document (as part of the distribution), at least starting after the 1.0 release. Yes there should - but for now: Just remove CHANGES and update README? I'd say yes. -- Christian
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36480] - [PATCH] Space support in RTF rendering
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36480. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36480 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-14 19:28 --- Sergey, thank you very much for another wonderful patch and for providing the test cases. That was a good fix. You could almost win a price for code beauty. :-) Not a single Checkstyle warning. Sorry for the delay applying the patch. Just too bad, RTF is not as expressive as XSL-FO, so it's impossible to map space conditionality and space resolution to RTF. But then, this is probably good enough. Few people will create one single FO for output on PDF and RTF simultaneously and expect the same output. Revision: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=344172view=rev -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Re: Preparing for the first release - Examples
On 13.11.2005 19:53:32 Andreas L Delmelle wrote: On Nov 13, 2005, at 18:00, Andreas L Delmelle wrote: On Nov 13, 2005, at 17:36, Jeremias Maerki wrote: snip / The other question is: What's the box? The containing area? Yep. I think this is answered in the definition of absolute- position=absolute: First, for the value of absolute The area's position (and possibly size) is specified with the 'left', 'right', 'top', and 'bottom' properties. These properties specify offsets with respect to the area's containing area. In XSL-FO 1.1, the wording is slightly different BTW: These properties specify offsets with respect to the area's nearest ancestor reference area. Does this make it simpler or more difficult? Wouldn't this mean that I wasn't confused at all? And me, neither. My checks wouldn't be so wrong. But it means that the spec changed in a backwards-incompatible way. And we will have to change the meaning/implementation of the top property. Right now it offsets the b-c relative to the top of the containing box, AFAICS. Well, I'll leave this for after the release. Thanks for digging into the 1.1 draft! Jeremias Maerki
Re: Preparing for the first release
Manuel Mall a écrit : As the project hasn't done a release for a long time and especially no release of the new codebase we should test probably a bit more extensively than usual that the distribution builds actually are working and don't contain any 'cheap' errors. To that effect I have build binary and source distributions from the current svn and made them available for download from http://people.apache.org/~manuel/fop/disttest. In the top level directory are the source and the java 1.4+ binary distributions. In the java1.3.1 directory are only binary distributions. I'm on a Debian GNU/Linux environment with both java 1.4.2 and java 1.5. I have encountered no particular problem by running the binary version on a few sample fo files. The source distribution also seems to build and run fine. My 2 cents... Vincent
Re: Preparing for the first release
I agree with you two. Therefore, I've resurrected status.xml, added it to our website again and prepared it so we can start using it after the release. BTW, I think I'm through with all the things I wanted to do. What's left now: - write the README/release notes - Create a copy of the xdocs/trunk directory to xdocs/0.90alpha1. - do the (PMC) vote on the release. - tag and release If it's possible I'd like to start the vote tomorrow and do the release around Thursday/Friday. That reasonable? On 14.11.2005 18:12:22 Christian Geisert wrote: Manuel Mall schrieb: [..] IMHO there should be a changes document (as part of the distribution), at least starting after the 1.0 release. Yes there should - but for now: Just remove CHANGES and update README? I'd say yes. -- Christian Jeremias Maerki
fo:marker and white space
I was looking at clipping warnings generated by examples/fo/markers/hide.fo when I noticed that white space around fo:marker seems significant with respect to the output generated when the marker is retrieved, e.g.: fo:marker fo:block some text /fo:block /fo:marker when retrieved produces: empty line some text empty line while: fo:markerfo:blocksome text/fo:block/fo:marker just generates: some text I am suspicious that this is wrong and both inputs should produce the same output. For a test case and its output see: http://people.apache.org/~manuel/fop/marker_test.xml http://people.apache.org/~manuel/fop/marker_test.pdf Manuel
