That's a good question. That is how it is named in the FOP trunk, and has
been for a long time apparently. I agree that fop.bat would be preferable
for Win platforms. I'll suggest this be changed in trunk, in which case I
can merge into my dev repo.
I never use fop.cmd myself for my development work. Furthermore, I only run
FOP on MacOSX, where I use ant to invoke it directly from the java task.
Thanks for testing out the Bidi and Middle Eastern support. I have recently
added fixes for fo:leader and a few other issues related to Bidi contexts.
See Patch 6 milestone under [1].
[1] https://skynav.trac.cvsdude.com/fop/report/6
Also, FYI, I recently moved the Skynav FOP repository to a (slightly)
different URL on GITHUB [2].
[2] http://github.com/skynav/fop
Best,
Glenn
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Jonathan Levinson
jonathan.levin...@intersystems.com wrote:
Hi Glenn,
** **
I have a question for you about skynav FOP. Why on Windows do you use
“.cmd” as the extension of the fop command file – fop.cmd, rather than
fop.bat?
** **
We are going to be deploying skynav FOP at many sites and it would be
great if we could rename the “.cmd” file to a “.bat” file since it would
require fewer changes to our interface code.
** **
Doing some research it seems that on Windows 7, Vista, and XP there is
little difference between “.cmd” and “.bat” files, and differences only
become significant on Windows 98. Am I wrong? Did I misread an article on
the Web?
** **
Thanks for the excellent work you have done! Our Middle Eastern team
tested your code and found nothing wrong with it in the context of our
reporting tool, which calls FOP to do rendering.
** **
Best Regards,
Jonathan Levinson
Senior Software Developer
Object Group
InterSystems
+1 617-621-0600
jonathan.levin...@intersystems.com
** **
