On Feb 23, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Glen Mazza wrote:
I know...sad thing is, you're the closest committer to
me and California is thousands of miles away! (We can
meet halfway though...perhaps Pittsburgh would be
good... ;)
Glen
With my luck, we'd still be on opposite sides of the continent! Would
that
--- The Web Maestro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One thing I know for certain, is that it would be
> great if we could all
> get together for a beer (root beer or ginger ale is
> acceptable for
> those trying to cut down!)
>
I know...sad thing is, you're the closest committer to
me and Calif
On Feb 23, 2005, at 7:28 AM, Victor Mote wrote:
Renaud Richardet wrote:
Your note sounded hard to me. My apologies to you and the
other members of the team. In the future i'll use standard
English. Please do not take my writing style as a sign of
misrespect, as this was NOT my intention. This style
Renaud Richardet wrote:
> Your note sounded hard to me. My apologies to you and the
> other members of the team. In the future i'll use standard
> English. Please do not take my writing style as a sign of
> misrespect, as this was NOT my intention. This style is
> pretty well accepted in Switz
Glen,
> We can do it this way. But on second thought, I think
> it would be better for Renaud to move it in as
> AWTRenderer, and slowly start factoring out more and
> more while things are getting settled. BTW, this will
> take some time to do anyway--it isn't easy because the
> renderers are s
We can do it this way. But on second thought, I think
it would be better for Renaud to move it in as
AWTRenderer, and slowly start factoring out more and
more while things are getting settled. BTW, this will
take some time to do anyway--it isn't easy because the
renderers are so different between
Given the new layout I don't even need to prepare anything. It would
only complicate things. Just rename the AWTRenderer to Java2DRenderer,
move it to the new location, then create an empty subclass of
Java2DRenderer called AWTRenderer and move any AWT-dependant code to
that subclass.
On 22.02.200
Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks good! Now whether you wish to do this before or
> after Renaud moves the logic over is up to you two.
> There's advantages/disadvantages to either method.
yes, that looks good!
Jeremias, if it's ok for the team, i would apreciate if you would do
the
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Deal. It seems like we want the same things but
> didn't understand each
> other. I hope we do now.
>
> I've documented all this in a Wiki page:
> http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FopAndJava2D
>
Looks good! Now whether you wish to do this
Deal. It seems like we want the same things but didn't understand each
other. I hope we do now.
I've documented all this in a Wiki page:
http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FopAndJava2D
You said that we name our renderer on the final output the user sees.
So I also added a print and bitmap pac
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A veto would have been easier. :-) I would simply
> have stopped and said:
> "Sigh. Again. Ok, next task."
>
Yes, but the change proposed simply doesn't rise to
the level of a veto.
> Would it be more interesting/agreeable if we would
> leave t
On 22.02.2005 17:16:56 Glen Mazza wrote:
> Now, if you want to create a Java2DRenderer as a
> abstract base class for Renderers utilizing
> it--AWTRenderer, AWTPrintRenderer, SVGRenderer,
> TIFFRenderer, etc., that would appear to make a lot
> more sense. Consider that before you tie
> "Java2DRe
On Feb 22, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now that we've got someone who will work on the AWT
Renderer I'd like to
know if someone is against renaming the AWT Renderer
to Java2D Renderer.
"AWT Renderer" has a rich
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now that we've got someone who will work on the AWT
> Renderer I'd like to
> know if someone is against renaming the AWT Renderer
> to Java2D Renderer.
"AWT Renderer" has a rich history within FOP, it'
On Feb 21, 2005, at 11:03 PM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
So here are the proposed changes:
- Package org.apache.fop.render.awt becomes
org.apache.fop.render.java2d
- AWTRenderer.java becomes Java2DRenderer.java (AWT*.java ->
Java2D*.java)
I think the viewer subpackage can stay as is under the renamed
Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
Now that we've got someone who will work on the AWT Renderer I'd like to
know if someone is against renaming the AWT Renderer to Java2D Renderer.
[..]
Any objections?
Not at all.
Christian
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
So here are the proposed changes:
- Package org.apache.fop.render.awt becomes org.apache.fop.render.java2d
- AWTRenderer.java becomes Java2DRenderer.java (AWT*.java ->
Java2D*.java)
I think the viewer subpackage can stay as is under the renamed package.
Any objections?
None
Now that we've got someone who will work on the AWT Renderer I'd like to
know if someone is against renaming the AWT Renderer to Java2D Renderer.
The API in use is actually the Java2D API [1], although most of the
classes had their origin within AWT (and are still in there). AWT is
ac
18 matches
Mail list logo