On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 06:16:37PM -0700, Glen Mazza wrote:
> 1.) Drop the apps.Driver class and incorporate its
> remaining code into apps.Fop.
>
> Reason: "Fop" appears to be a better self-documenting
> class name within user's embedded code. It's also a
> neat name for a product. User's co
-- "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> > That should be enough for us in 1.0, no? Those
> more
> > elaborate API goals appear best discussed
> post-1.0,
> > presumably once more vital parts of the system
> have
> > been addressed.
>
> A stable API is as important as
Glen Mazza wrote:
That should be enough for us in 1.0, no? Those more
elaborate API goals appear best discussed post-1.0,
presumably once more vital parts of the system have
been addressed.
A stable API is as important as other major features.
If we do a mojor release, post-release API changes s
--- "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> > There are two possible API changes I am wondering
> if
> > we should make.
>
> Have another look at the API proposals in the old
> Wiki.
>
>
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?FOPAvalonization
>
Well, a bit too ex
Glen Mazza wrote:
There are two possible API changes I am wondering if
we should make.
Have another look at the API proposals in the old Wiki.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?FOPAvalonization
1.) Drop the apps.Driver class and incorporate its
remaining code into apps.Fop.
There shoul
--- "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FWIW, FAD merged Driver into Fop some time ago.
> From memory, the only
> issues were to do with the AWT renderer and its
> re-start capability
> (which I gather is not functioning anyway.)
>
Thanks for letting us know! I was unaware of that
Glen Mazza wrote:
Team,
...
1.) Drop the apps.Driver class and incorporate its
remaining code into apps.Fop.
Reason: "Fop" appears to be a better self-documenting
class name within user's embedded code. It's also a
neat name for a product. User's code would move from
looking like this:
// Const
Team,
There are two possible API changes I am wondering if
we should make. I'm thinking about longer-term market
share of our 1.0 product, even if things get rocky for
us for a few months. Simon's changes are making the
HEAD code in FOP close to being useful, and so we may
have a narrowing windo
