Re: FOs and Areas

Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: -Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] J.Pietschmann wrote: I've got a lot of ideas myself, perhaps too many. What the project needs is *working* *code*. Working code is predicated on working ideas, is it not? That's why I asked about

RE: FOs and Areas

> -Original Message- > From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > J.Pietschmann wrote: > > > > I've got a lot of ideas myself, perhaps too many. What the > > project needs is *working* *code*. > > Working code is predicated on working ideas, is it not? That's why I > asked about

RE: FOs and Areas

> -Original Message- > From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Yuck! Flashbacks of SoftRAM > Ok, that's understood! None of that here! Thanks for the info. (I'll be back with more ideas... maybe some more bad ones, but I'll leave you guys to judge that ;) ) Cheers, Andreas

Re: FOs and Areas

J.Pietschmann wrote: Peter B. West wrote: (does JÃrg work?), Not in the archive. I know you are a long-time advocate of sticking with the codebase, and have been very critical of my approach, so I don't want to draw any unwarranted conclusions here. Does the above mean that you are interested

Re: FOs and Areas

Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: Which is done by {which parser?} Xerces 2.3.4, but it doesn't matter. The problem are the generated Java objects. 80k? For how many fo:* approx. in the file? 8 objects. A table with some twenty odd columns and 800+ rows. A TableCell, a Block and a FOText per cell. The

RE: Going away (was: FOs and Areas)

Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 17.12.2003 15:25:37 Victor Mote wrote: > > I would rather go away than to be the guy that everyone wishes would > > go away. > > Ok, Victor, until that happens I'd like you to stay. I don't see *any* > indication that *anyone* wishes that *anybody* should go away. Well,

RE: FOs and Areas

> -Original Message- > From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: > > > The gist of this section seems to be ... that you don't know enough to > comment on what is going on. Duly noted. > Not quite. More like: I *think* I don't know enough (maybe _that_ is

RE: FOs and Areas

> -Original Message- > From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: > > > > However, right now, reacting the way you do, I'm getting the impression > > you're taking it waaay *too* seriously --in fact, you have been > doing that > > all along. It almost seems

RE: FOs and Areas

Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: > With all due respect, I think you're overreacting here. Maybe you already > know this yourself, and have changed your mind about the > 'adios'... Anyway, > I have been following the discussions between Peter and yourself > (--at least > the recent ones, which may be ex

Re: FOs and Areas

each leading to rewrites of significant portions of the code (eg. tomcat 3.x, 4.x, 5.x). Why should FOP get away with only two iterations? Manuel - Original Message - From: "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 200

RE: FOs and Areas

> -Original Message- > From: John Austin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 15:56, J.Pietschmann wrote: > > I've got a lot of ideas myself, perhaps too many. What the > > project needs is *working* *code*. > > Amen! > > [but a short one, not drawn out like the final chorus

Going away (was: FOs and Areas)

On 17.12.2003 15:25:37 Victor Mote wrote: > I would rather go away than to be the guy that everyone wishes would > go away. Ok, Victor, until that happens I'd like you to stay. I don't see *any* indication that *anyone* wishes that *anybody* should go away. Well, our moderators would surely like t

Re: FOs and Areas

On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 15:56, J.Pietschmann wrote: > I've got a lot of ideas myself, perhaps too many. What the > project needs is *working* *code*. Amen! [but a short one, not drawn out like the final chorus of Messiah!] -- John Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: FOs and Areas

Peter B. West wrote: (does JÃrg work?), Not in the archive. I know you are a long-time advocate of sticking with the codebase, and have been very critical of my approach, so I don't want to draw any unwarranted conclusions here. Does the above mean that you are interested in my ideas? I've got

RE: FOs and Areas

> -Original Message- > From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Peter B. West wrote: > > > The statements are getting extreme. Let's just agree to differ. I'm > > happy to let my code and the design that underlies it do my talking. > > OK. For the reasons already mentioned, this does

RE: FOs and Areas

Peter B. West wrote: > The statements are getting extreme. Let's just agree to differ. I'm > happy to let my code and the design that underlies it do my talking. OK. For the reasons already mentioned, this does not work for me. I consider this kind of behavior to be uncivilized. However, I have

RE: FOs and Areas

J.Pietschmann wrote: > Victor Mote wrote: > > I guess you are saying that a page-sequence will use too much > memory (??). > > Again, this is a non-issue. Just use a different LayoutStrategy > that is more > > eager. > > This can be an issue. In a real world file I benchmarked > (rendered to 58 pa

Re: FOs and Areas

J.Pietschmann wrote: Victor Mote wrote: I guess you are saying that a page-sequence will use too much memory (??). Again, this is a non-issue. Just use a different LayoutStrategy that is more eager. This can be an issue. In a real world file I benchmarked (rendered to 58 pages), the FO tree f

Re: FOs and Areas

Victor, The statements are getting extreme. Let's just agree to differ. I'm happy to let my code and the design that underlies it do my talking. Peter -- Peter B. West

Re: FOs and Areas

Victor Mote wrote: I guess you are saying that a page-sequence will use too much memory (??). Again, this is a non-issue. Just use a different LayoutStrategy that is more eager. This can be an issue. In a real world file I benchmarked (rendered to 58 pages), the FO tree for the second page sequence

RE: FOs and Areas

Peter B. West wrote: > >>It seems to me, however, that the key to 1) solving the layout > >>dependencies of FO property expressions, and 2) reducing footprint, > >>particularly for those long documents which are naturally expressed with > >>very large fo:flow trees in a few page-sequences, is to h

RE: FOs and Areas

> -Original Message- > From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I realize the tone of this posting has not been entirely irenic. I'll > try harder. > As a kind-of headz up (seen my understanding, for the moment, is too little to add anything interesting to the discussion --may

Re: FOs and Areas

Victor Mote wrote: Peter B. West wrote: Herewith some notes on the tortured relationship between the two. As I don't know much about layout in HEAD, I am hoping that differences and (hopefully) correspondences between my ideas and the HEAD redesign can be pointed out by wiser HEADs than mine.

RE: FOs and Areas

Peter B. West wrote: > Herewith some notes on the tortured relationship between the two. As I > don't know much about layout in HEAD, I am hoping that differences and > (hopefully) correspondences between my ideas and the HEAD redesign can > be pointed out by wiser HEADs than mine. I don't claim

Re: FOs and Areas

--- "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems to me, however, that the key to 1) solving > the layout > dependencies of FO property expressions, and 2) > reducing footprint, > particularly for those long documents which are > naturally expressed with > very large fo:flow trees in a f

FOs and Areas

Herewith some notes on the tortured relationship between the two. As I don't know much about layout in HEAD, I am hoping that differences and (hopefully) correspondences between my ideas and the HEAD redesign can be pointed out by wiser HEADs than mine. As I recall, in the original original ve