DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32789] [PATCH] Arabic Shaping not Supported by FOP
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32789 Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52873] Assertion failure in o.a.f.complexscripts.fonts.GlyphCoverageTable with fonts having out of order or duplicate glyph indexes
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52873 Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
resolved, fixed bugs since FOP1.0 that need to be closed
I just noticed that there are 83 bugs [1] that, since the FOP 1.0 release (2010-07-20), have been marked as *resolved* and *fixed*, but have not been changed to *closed* status. [1] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?list_id=81930;resolution=FIXED;chfieldto=Now;query_format=advanced;chfield=bug_status;chfieldfrom=2010-07-20;bug_status=RESOLVED;product=Fop I could change all these to closed, but it would be better if those who filed or fixed the bug would do this in order to ensure that there is proper closure, with any verification they think is needed.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49060] [PATCH] File Descriptor leak in AFP renderer
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49060 Peter Hancock peter.hanc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51791] lots of deprecation warnings
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51791 Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED Resolution|FIXED |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com 2012-03-28 06:32:49 UTC --- though I see no record of an explicit change to resolve this, I do not encounter any deprecation warnings on JDK 1.5 or 1.6 -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49808] Setting accessibility in Java
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49808 Peter Hancock peter.hanc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50391] [PATCH] Add support for different flow-name of fo:region-body in FOP
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50391 Peter Hancock peter.hanc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49752] [PATCH] findbugs build target enhancements
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49752 Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50909] [PATCH] fixed bugs in MODCAParser
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50909 Peter Hancock peter.hanc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51664] [PATCH] Tagged PDF performance improvement + tests
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51664 Peter Hancock peter.hanc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51962] [PATCH] last simple-page-master not chosen when force-page-count=odd
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962 Peter Hancock peter.hanc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52089] [PATCH] Embedding JPEG support in AFP
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52089 Peter Hancock peter.hanc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49008] missing rtl and arabic shapping in fop's PDF, while it worked with batik-rasterizer
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49008 Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
Assigning unique resource names
Hi I've nearly finished work on getting fop-pdf-image to overlay PDFs by appending their content streams and merging their resource dictionaries, rather than by creating XObject Forms. The problem I have left will be more intrusive into the fop codebase than what I've had to do so far, so I thought I'd check in before I start working on it. The reason I'm adapting fop-pdf-images to support merging PDF images into the main PDF content instead of using XObject Forms is that the use of lots of PDF XObject Forms seems to cause RIPs and clients to perform poorly or run out of memory. The way I propose to do it, fop-pdf-images will use an XObject form if the preloader sees a pdf image re-used more than a configurable number of times (one by default), and otherwise merge it into the main pdf. Most of that is done, but there's a problem with ensuring unique resource names. XObject Form resource dictionaries are their own namespace, so no resource name (font, ExtGState, etc) in an XObject Form may conflict with a name in the parent page's resource dictionary. If XObject Forms are no longer used by fop-pdf-image, that namespace separation goes away. I have to merge the image page(s)'s resource dictionaries into the resource dictionary of the page they're being overlaid over. In the case of fop, that's the global resource dictionary because fop doesn't currently write per-page resource dictionaries. There's nothing wrong with this beyond potentially making the resource dictionary a bit fat, but it means I need a way to guarantee that a name will not conflict with any other name assigned by fop. For GState dictionary objects that's easy; fop just uses GS+object number as the name, so if I follow the same scheme when copying resources I'm guaranteed to get a unique name since object numbers are unique. Unfortunately, fop doesn't do anything so consistent for fonts or most other resources, and that's made it nearly impossible for me to guarantee that I can use a name without a later part of the XSL-FO causing fop to create an object that tries to use the same name. Solving this will require some changes to the way fop writes the PDF resources dictionary. I propose that the PDFResources class should take responsibilty for allocating resource names and ensuring they're consistent. Instead of asking each resource what its name is, the PDFResources class should *assign* it a name. Those names can be minimal and compact - eg Fnn for fonts, GSnn for graphics states, etc. nn would be a counter maintained by PDFResources. That's the convention followed by most other PDF producing software and would make it simple and reliable to inject objects not created by fop into the resources dictionary without risk of conflicts. That'll be important if people want to be able to write extensions that add new, custom PDF content; it's not just useful for fop-pdf-images. This API change would only affect extensions, services and clients that work directly with org.apache.fop.pdf. and org.apache.fop.render.pdf. classes, and only some of those. Clients that use the main fop APIs would be completely unaffected, as would clients that use the area tree / IR code, image loader code, or pretty much anything except the guts of pdf handling. I'll post a proposed patch soon, along with patches for some other changes that enable what I'm doing but may be useful for others. A patch with the fop-pdf-images merge feature support will follow once I've finished it enough that I can do test-runs. -- Craig Ringer
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46360] Thread-safety issue rendering SVG
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46360 Alex Giotis alex.gio...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50240] [PATCH] Upgrade to Java 1.5 - Converted EncodingMode to an Enum
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50240 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50245] [PATCH] Upgrade to Java 1.5 - Added type-safe parameters to collections in Fonts
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50245 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51144] [PATCH] ToUnicode table for subset font contains invalid entries
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51144 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50703] [PATCH] Parametrize PropertyCache
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50703 Alex Giotis alex.gio...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50699] [PATCH] Problem with greek glyphnames using type1 font for postscript output
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50699 Alex Giotis alex.gio...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51385] [PATCH] Configurable PDF version
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51385 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51596] [PATCH] Cleanup and tests to TTFFile (subsetting Glyf)
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51596 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: resolved, fixed bugs since FOP1.0 that need to be closed
On 28/03/12 07:23, Glenn Adams wrote: I just noticed that there are 83 bugs [1] that, since the FOP 1.0 release (2010-07-20), have been marked as *resolved* and *fixed*, but have not been changed to *closed* status. [1] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?list_id=81930;resolution=FIXED;chfieldto=Now;query_format=advanced;chfield=bug_status;chfieldfrom=2010-07-20;bug_status=RESOLVED;product=Fop I could change all these to closed, but it would be better if those who filed or fixed the bug would do this in order to ensure that there is proper closure, with any verification they think is needed. I wouldn’t bother. Lacking of a proper QA process, we don’t use the ‘verified’ and ‘closed’ status and consider that a bug has been handled once its status has been changed to ‘fixed’. Vincent
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51759] [PATCH] Moved unique font name prefixing to PDFFactory and added test
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51760] [PATCH] PostScript PDF-image causes error
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51760 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51789] funny characters in documentation comments
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51789 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51928] [PATCH] Upgrade to JUnit4
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51928 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52010] [PATCH] Simplification of the build.xml
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52136] [PATCH] Build.xml simplification and JUnit regex
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52151] [PATCH] A code-coverage tool for code analysis
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52151 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52177] [PATCH] AFP double byte CharacterSetBuilder should be a singleton
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52177 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52192] [PATCH] TTFFontLoader ignores the useKerning attribute used with fonts
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52192 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52197] [PATCH] AFM encoding
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52197 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52499] [PATCH] non embeddable TTF fonts -- throw exception if trying to embed
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52513] [PATCH] Moving FOUserAgent to the constructor of Renderers
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52513 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52536] [PATCH] Updating documentation about FOPs API
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52536 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52992] [PATCH] National characters in PDF base fonts
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52992 Vincent Hennebert vhenneb...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[PATH] National characters |[PATCH] National characters |in PDF base fonts |in PDF base fonts -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52849] [PATCH] SVG font being painted as shapes when font present in the system
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52849 Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46962] [PATCH] Deadlock in PropertyCache class
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46962 Alex Giotis alex.gio...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: resolved, fixed bugs since FOP1.0 that need to be closed
I wouldn’t bother. Lacking of a proper QA process, we don’t use the ‘verified’ and ‘closed’ status and consider that a bug has been handled once its status has been changed to ‘fixed’. Vincent Not sure I agree with you there Vincent. Giving a bug a closed status allows us to perform queries, as Glenn has, to see what patches are left outstanding and what needs to be applied. It also gives creates a necessary disparity between a [PATCH] which has Resolved and Fixed status, and when that patch has been applied. Also, we are always going to lack the proper QA process so I'm not sure that argument is valid. Mehdi
Re: resolved, fixed bugs since FOP1.0 that need to be closed
On 28/03/12 09:58, mehdi houshmand wrote: I wouldn’t bother. Lacking of a proper QA process, we don’t use the ‘verified’ and ‘closed’ status and consider that a bug has been handled once its status has been changed to ‘fixed’. Vincent Not sure I agree with you there Vincent. Giving a bug a closed status allows us to perform queries, as Glenn has, to see what patches are left outstanding and what needs to be applied. I don’t see what ‘closed’ brings you in this case. You can already, easily get the list of patches to be applied: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?list_id=81946;short_desc=patch;query_format=advanced;bug_status=NEW;bug_status=ASSIGNED;bug_status=REOPENED;bug_status=NEEDINFO;short_desc_type=allwordssubstr;product=Fop It also gives creates a necessary disparity between a [PATCH] which has Resolved and Fixed status, and when that patch has been applied. Again, I don’t see what ‘closed’ brings you. A patch has been applied when its status has been changed to ‘resolved’. Also, we are always going to lack the proper QA process so I'm not sure that argument is valid. Who’s going to mark the issue as closed? The reporter? I don’t expect them to do that. The committer? This is an additional, unnecessary step to marking it as resolved. Really, I don’t see what we can get out of this. Mehdi Vincent
A proposal to change the configuration and deployment of FOP
Hello, As part of our work addressing URI resolution in FOP [1], Mehdi and myself have been considering making changes to the configuration and deployment of FOP. Our proposal will introduce breaking changes to the public API that will affect code that embeds FOP. Please review our proposal [2] and provide feedback. Thanks, Peter [1] http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/URIResolution [2] http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FopFactoryConfiguration
Re: resolved, fixed bugs since FOP1.0 that need to be closed
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Vincent Hennebert vhenneb...@gmail.comwrote: On 28/03/12 09:58, mehdi houshmand wrote: I wouldn’t bother. Lacking of a proper QA process, we don’t use the ‘verified’ and ‘closed’ status and consider that a bug has been handled once its status has been changed to ‘fixed’. Vincent Not sure I agree with you there Vincent. Giving a bug a closed status allows us to perform queries, as Glenn has, to see what patches are left outstanding and what needs to be applied. I don’t see what ‘closed’ brings you in this case. You can already, easily get the list of patches to be applied: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?list_id=81946;short_desc=patch;query_format=advanced;bug_status=NEW;bug_status=ASSIGNED;bug_status=REOPENED;bug_status=NEEDINFO;short_desc_type=allwordssubstr;product=Fop It also gives creates a necessary disparity between a [PATCH] which has Resolved and Fixed status, and when that patch has been applied. Again, I don’t see what ‘closed’ brings you. A patch has been applied when its status has been changed to ‘resolved’. Also, we are always going to lack the proper QA process so I'm not sure that argument is valid. Who’s going to mark the issue as closed? The reporter? I don’t expect them to do that. The committer? This is an additional, unnecessary step to marking it as resolved. Really, I don’t see what we can get out of this. If we did have a full QA process, we would assign resolved bugs to someone to check and transition to verified state. Then one of the following would be designated to transition the bug to closed state: (1) original submitter, (2) fixer, (3) QA, or (4) PM. Leaving a bug in resolved state (according to the fixer's perspective) does not close the loop on the bug (at least in my opinion). In fact, it remains an open bug as far as bugzilla is concerned, e.g., closed bugs are displayed in strike-out style, while resolved bugs are not. The reason I am raising this now is because I am reviewing the bug list since the FOP 1.0 release in order to prepare information for a possible upcoming FOP 1.1 release. In doing this review, I found some bugs marked as resolved+fixed and others as closed+fixed. This makes it more difficult to compile and classify the status of bugs, and results in inconsistent views about the status of given bugs or FOP as a whole. I would prefer that we attempt to take the effort to allow the original submitter to comment upon resolved+fix bugs and close the bug, and, if after some time has passed (e.g., 2 weeks) without the submitter doing this, then the fixer (or any committer) may close. One reason to do this is that the original submitter may not agree that the fix actually fixes the problem they reported. If you or another committer prefers not to take the extra steps of closing bugs you have fixed, then I would be happy to close them out so you don't need to bother with it. Please let me know if you would like me to do this for you. G.
Re: resolved, fixed bugs since FOP1.0 that need to be closed
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I just noticed that there are 83 bugs [1] that, since the FOP 1.0 release (2010-07-20), have been marked as *resolved* and *fixed*, but have not been changed to *closed* status. [1] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?list_id=81930;resolution=FIXED;chfieldto=Now;query_format=advanced;chfield=bug_status;chfieldfrom=2010-07-20;bug_status=RESOLVED;product=Fop I could change all these to closed, but it would be better if those who filed or fixed the bug would do this in order to ensure that there is proper closure, with any verification they think is needed. Thanks to Alex, Mehdi, and Peter for the quick response to close bugs they reported or fixed!
Re: A proposal to change the configuration and deployment of FOP
Hi Peter, can you please explain what problem you're trying to solve? From the Wiki pages I cannot derive that. And what do you mean by the separation of configuration and deployment? I'm particularly clueless as to how an API affects deployment here. There must be a really, really good reason to change the frontmost public API of FOP in a backwards-incompatible way. Changing the API will cause considerable work for all users when they upgrade. We must not do that on a whim. The current API is the product of long discussions and a positive vote back in 2005/2006. It was roughly modelled after the JAXP pattern with TransformerFactory and Transformer. I'd say that the API has proven to be solid over the years. For reference: http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ApiRequirements http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ApiDesign On 28.03.2012 12:02:27 Peter Hancock wrote: Hello, As part of our work addressing URI resolution in FOP [1], Mehdi and myself have been considering making changes to the configuration and deployment of FOP. Our proposal will introduce breaking changes to the public API that will affect code that embeds FOP. Please review our proposal [2] and provide feedback. Thanks, Peter [1] http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/URIResolution [2] http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FopFactoryConfiguration Jeremias Maerki
Re: A proposal to change the configuration and deployment of FOP
Hi Peter, The public API could be improved but I also don't see in the wiki links a good reason to do so. It is expected to have a stable public API, once a project reaches a 1.0 version. Backwards incompatible changes are expected in a 2.0 version for methods/classes that have been deprecated. Alex Giotis On Mar 28, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Jeremias Maerki wrote: Hi Peter, can you please explain what problem you're trying to solve? From the Wiki pages I cannot derive that. And what do you mean by the separation of configuration and deployment? I'm particularly clueless as to how an API affects deployment here. There must be a really, really good reason to change the frontmost public API of FOP in a backwards-incompatible way. Changing the API will cause considerable work for all users when they upgrade. We must not do that on a whim. The current API is the product of long discussions and a positive vote back in 2005/2006. It was roughly modelled after the JAXP pattern with TransformerFactory and Transformer. I'd say that the API has proven to be solid over the years. For reference: http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ApiRequirements http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ApiDesign On 28.03.2012 12:02:27 Peter Hancock wrote: Hello, As part of our work addressing URI resolution in FOP [1], Mehdi and myself have been considering making changes to the configuration and deployment of FOP. Our proposal will introduce breaking changes to the public API that will affect code that embeds FOP. Please review our proposal [2] and provide feedback. Thanks, Peter [1] http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/URIResolution [2] http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FopFactoryConfiguration Jeremias Maerki
