Fwd: Love Apache? Give Back with a "MyApache" Shoutout!
-- Forwarded message -- From: Sally Khudairi Subject: Love Apache? Give Back with a "MyApache" Shoutout! The Apache Software Foundation has become a worldwide force in the software industry because of the diverse programs, applications,and tools built on its projects such as the HTTP Server, Tomcat, Hadoop, Lucene and many others. This year, we’re celebrating 10 years of the ASF! While the Foundation and committers have kept the innovation coming, it's the millions of users who have helped make Apache one of the most pervasive Open Source communities in the world. So, in celebrating the success of Apache, we’re celebrating you. To recognize the breadth of the Apache footprint, we're inviting all Apache users to submit a video telling everyone why you love Apache. Maybe you've created a cool program, Website or device. Maybe you use Apache at work and it makes your life a bit easier. Or perhaps you just love hacking on Apache software. We want to hear all about it! WHO SHOULD SUBMIT? MyApache community video submissions are open for any individual or group who has used or is using Apache code from any Apache project an in interesting way. There is no limit to the number of videos an individual or group can submit, but each video must cover a different Apache use or implementation. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN YOUR VIDEO SALUTE Each MyApache video submission should be no longer than 1 minute in length. While we encourage you to get creative and play up the humor, any videos containing inappropriate, distasteful or illegal content will be disqualified and prohibited from being posted. MyApache video content should tell the story of who you are as an Apache user and how you have used Apache. Video content should describe: 1. Things you have created or accomplished with Apache 2. Why you love Apache 3. Your thoughts and happy anniversary wishes to the Apache Software Foundation (singing “Happy Birthday” is encouraged!) Your video content can answer a combination of these questions: Q. Why do I like Apache? Q. Why did I start using Apache? Q. How long have I used Apache? Q. How often do I use Apache? Q. How do I use Apache? Q. Do I use Apache at work, for hobby or other times? Q. What Apache project(s) do I currently work with or have worked with in the past? Q. What was particularly good about those projects or their communities? Q. What and where are some of the improvements I’ve seen in Apache since I began using it? Q. How does Apache differ from other Open Source communities? Q. What is my happy anniversary wish to Apache? Q. Why would I like to thank Apache? HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR "MYAPACHE" VIDEO To submit your video, go to www.YouSendIt.com and use the "Try Sending Now" feature to submit your video (you can also sign up for a free YouSendIt Lite account). Videos should be sent to apache...@pageonepr.com with "MyApache Video Submission, [Your Name]" in the subject line. In the email message, please include the following information. We will tag your video with your first name and last name initial only. Full Name: Age: Email address (for notification): Employer: Title: Open Source affiliations: If submitting a video as a group, please choose one contact person. CREATE A KNOCK-OUT "MYAPACHE" VIDEO, GET FEATURED AT APACHECON All videos submitted for MyApache will be previewed and posted on TheApacheWay YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/user/TheApacheWay). Videos may also appear on the Websites of The Apache Software Foundation and/or ApacheCon. Outstanding videos will be showcased this November at ApacheCon US during key conference events, and two lucky submittors will be chosen to attend the ASF's Big Feather Birthday Bash during the conference! The deadline to submit your video to have it considered for the ApacheCon showcase is Friday, 2 October, 2009 at midnight Pacific Time. Now that you have the info, you’re ready to start rolling. Lights, camera, action, Apache! # # #
Re: Moving to Java 1.5, retroweaving for 1.4
On 25.08.2009 20:38:19 Simon Pepping wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:11:34PM +0100, Vincent Hennebert wrote: > > Hi Clay, > > > > The Web Maestro wrote: > > > I agree about consistency w requirements... Perhaps one additional > > > release req 1.4, then move to 1.5 for the next release. I don't have > > > any real energy about whether the 1.0 should be 1.4 or 1.5, however... > > > I do agree that there should be a significant version change > > > signalling the move from 1.4 to 1.5. Perhaps 0.96 (1.4) and 1.0 (1.5)? > > > If FOP is going to switch anyway, is there a compelling reason not to > > > req Java 1.6 instead of 1.5 for FOP 1.0 (or whatever version makes the > > > jump)? Would that lock out a huge number of our audience? Would > > > requiring 1.6 mean any significant performance or other benefit? > > > > According to this thread the majority seems to go along with releasing > > a Java 1.4 compliant, 1.0 version. There would be a significant change > > Agreed. Agreed. > > in the number of the following release, along with a jump to Java 1.5 as > > a minimum requirement. That???s fine by me. > > Not agreed. There were two remarks about the version number. That part > remains open. I don't think it's that important at the moment. Let's worry about the next release first. > > I propose to launch the poll shortly after the release of 1.0. > > Very well. > > Simon > > -- > Simon Pepping > home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu Jeremias Maerki
Re: Moving to Java 1.5, retroweaving for 1.4
On 24.08.2009 14:04:13 Laurent Caillette wrote: > Hi all, > > A few thoughts about Java 1.5 support and FOP version numbers. > > I suggest to keep the emblematic "1.0" for the full support of the > XSLT-1.0 spec. I don't see any problem with FOP version hitting 0.99 or > even 0.123 one day. I do. We don't currently have the resources available to even hope for achieving something close to 100% spec coverage within the next 5 years (judging from the progress lately). And some people simply don't use 0.x software. Some companies have strict policies in that direction (even if that's stupid in FOP's case). But we've had that discussion before and decided to go 1.0 with the next release. Maybe going 1.0 will give FOP more visibility and there's a minimal chance that it will attract new contributors in the future. FOP turns 10 in a couple of months and still being 0.x is a joke in itself IMO. > Java 5 as minimum requirement sounds good to me (while another version > with 1.4 sounds reasonable, too). But Java 6 is too high as minimum > requirement. Java 5 is still the default JVM on Mac. Agreed. > Hope this helps, > > c. > > Jeremias Maerki
Fwd: "keep is not auto but context is"
Begin forwarded message: From: Andreas Delmelle On 25 Aug 2009, at 12:22, Vincent Hennebert wrote: Keeps do /not/ apply to fo:table-cell: http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#fo_table-cell So whatever that warning means, it is not related to tables. OK, so I guess it's just a coincidence that the warning appears only in table-related tests... Must have misread the log output here. Apparently, they come from 'some' other testcase(s). I guess this will be looked into as soon as I or anyone else feel(s) like it... If they were routed via the event- handling system, we would at least see in which of the 480 tests it occurs. At any rate, this remark made we wonder why we even have a getKeepWithPrevious() and getKeepWithNext() in TableCellLM... Just tried relying on the superclass implementation. If the method would be called, it should ultimately throw an IllegalStateException, since getKeepTogetherProperty() is not implemented for BlockStackingLM. So, I ran the jUnit tests after that change, and got no indication of issues whatsoever, which means that those methods on TableCellLM are actually never called at runtime. Maybe they had better be removed. I don't see why there is a 'TODO: Fix me...' in both methods. After all, how should we interpret keep-with-previous or keep-with-next in that context anyway? keep-together makes sense, even though it does not apply to table-cell. Later Andreas Andreas Delmelle mailto:andreas.delmelle.AT.telenet.be jabber: mandr...@jabber.org skype: adlm0608 ---
Re: Moving to Java 1.5, retroweaving for 1.4
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:11:34PM +0100, Vincent Hennebert wrote: > Hi Clay, > > The Web Maestro wrote: > > I agree about consistency w requirements... Perhaps one additional > > release req 1.4, then move to 1.5 for the next release. I don't have > > any real energy about whether the 1.0 should be 1.4 or 1.5, however... > > I do agree that there should be a significant version change > > signalling the move from 1.4 to 1.5. Perhaps 0.96 (1.4) and 1.0 (1.5)? > > If FOP is going to switch anyway, is there a compelling reason not to > > req Java 1.6 instead of 1.5 for FOP 1.0 (or whatever version makes the > > jump)? Would that lock out a huge number of our audience? Would > > requiring 1.6 mean any significant performance or other benefit? > > According to this thread the majority seems to go along with releasing > a Java 1.4 compliant, 1.0 version. There would be a significant change Agreed. > in the number of the following release, along with a jump to Java 1.5 as > a minimum requirement. That???s fine by me. Not agreed. There were two remarks about the version number. That part remains open. > I propose to launch the poll shortly after the release of 1.0. Very well. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Merge the ChangingIPDHack Branch Back to Trunk
Time for the results: 7 +1, no negative vote. The vote passes. I’ll proceed with the merge in the next days. Thanks, Vincent Vincent Hennebert wrote: > Hi All, > > Having had no feedback from the users list, I’m happy to announce that > the ChangingIPDHack branch is now totally bug-free :-) > > Following the discussion on general@ [1], the best way to handle this > probably is to merge the changes back into the Trunk, even if they are > hacky. Maintaining a separate branch may turn out to be more > time-consuming than reverting the merge once work on a new layout engine > starts. > > So I’d like to launch a vote for merging the following branch: > https://svn.eu.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/Temp_ChangingIPDHack > into Trunk. > > +1 from me. > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/ypn2p6c27gjx3vzi > > > Thanks, > Vincent
Re: Moving to Java 1.5, retroweaving for 1.4
Vincent Hennebert wrote: Hi Vincent, I’d say it the other way round: I think that there is no compelling reason to switch to Java 1.6. Apart maybe from the internationalization area, the improvements made in that version are not likely to be that much of a benefit for FOP to justify the jump. Of course, that doesn’t prevent users from running FOP with a 1.6 JVM, and take advantage of the performance improvements made in that release. According to this thread the majority seems to go along with releasing a Java 1.4 compliant, 1.0 version. There would be a significant change in the number of the following release, along with a jump to Java 1.5 as a minimum requirement. That’s fine by me. I propose to launch the poll shortly after the release of 1.0. yes I agree with your summary above. Thanks, Chris
Re: Moving to Java 1.5, retroweaving for 1.4
Hi Clay, The Web Maestro wrote: > I agree about consistency w requirements... Perhaps one additional > release req 1.4, then move to 1.5 for the next release. I don't have > any real energy about whether the 1.0 should be 1.4 or 1.5, however... > I do agree that there should be a significant version change > signalling the move from 1.4 to 1.5. Perhaps 0.96 (1.4) and 1.0 (1.5)? > If FOP is going to switch anyway, is there a compelling reason not to > req Java 1.6 instead of 1.5 for FOP 1.0 (or whatever version makes the > jump)? Would that lock out a huge number of our audience? Would > requiring 1.6 mean any significant performance or other benefit? I’d say it the other way round: I think that there is no compelling reason to switch to Java 1.6. Apart maybe from the internationalization area, the improvements made in that version are not likely to be that much of a benefit for FOP to justify the jump. Of course, that doesn’t prevent users from running FOP with a 1.6 JVM, and take advantage of the performance improvements made in that release. According to this thread the majority seems to go along with releasing a Java 1.4 compliant, 1.0 version. There would be a significant change in the number of the following release, along with a jump to Java 1.5 as a minimum requirement. That’s fine by me. I propose to launch the poll shortly after the release of 1.0. Vincent
