RE: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?
I don't use command line. I don't use a configuration file. Effect on embedded code? From: Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:18 PM To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default? well, the consensus seems to enable by default, which I have now done; to disable, there are two methods: (1) use '-nocs' option on command line (2) use complex-scripts disabled=true/ in configuration file this will go into my next patch to the Temp_ComplexScripts branch On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:58 PM, J.Pietschmann j3322...@yahoo.de wrote: Am 19.07.2011 09:51, schrieb Jeremias Maerki: I'd enable it by default. I think that results in fewer questions and performance freaks can always disable it if you can make it configurable. I had the same thoughts. J.Pietschmann
Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?
FopFactory.setComplexScriptFeaturesEnabled(false) On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Eric Douglas edoug...@blockhouse.comwrote: ** I don't use command line. I don't use a configuration file. Effect on embedded code? -- *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:18 PM *To:* fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org *Subject:* Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default? well, the consensus seems to enable by default, which I have now done; to disable, there are two methods: (1) use '-nocs' option on command line (2) use complex-scripts disabled=true/ in configuration file this will go into my next patch to the Temp_ComplexScripts branch On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:58 PM, J.Pietschmann j3322...@yahoo.de wrote: Am 19.07.2011 09:51, schrieb Jeremias Maerki: I'd enable it by default. I think that results in fewer questions and performance freaks can always disable it if you can make it configurable. I had the same thoughts. J.Pietschmann
Re: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I assume either the FOP developers know why there's a circular reference and have the resolution or they just use the compiled jars and ignore the issue. Just about the entire open source community disagrees with you. Everyone treats ant, maven, and (for that matter) gcc as opaque packages, not as source dependencies. It's a tool.
RE: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I don't know what you're talking about but it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. AFAIK maven is a tool. I have yet to see a source package reference maven in build dependancies. Ant is a dependancies. If I don't specifically have ant in the Build Path I can't compile FOP. I get 55 errors on version 1.0. Ant is open source or there wouldn't be this discussion. I downloaded the source to FOP to compile my own jar, initially because the compiled jar offered didn't work because it included a classpath in the manifest and I'm using it with other software which has it's own classpath builder. To compile FOP I added all the classes it needed in the build path (gets errors without them). I downloaded them as source if they made the source available and for one or two old jars I couldn't find a source I grabbed a compiled jar. Ant has source you can download. It is open source. Don't speak for the open source community. Your response has nothing to do with the question (why the circular reference?). The discussion didn't need your two cents. -Original Message- From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargul...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 2:47 PM To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I assume either the FOP developers know why there's a circular reference and have the resolution or they just use the compiled jars and ignore the issue. Just about the entire open source community disagrees with you. Everyone treats ant, maven, and (for that matter) gcc as opaque packages, not as source dependencies. It's a tool.
