Hi all,
I have attached a patch file which provides support for Retroweaver at
compilation time in FOP's ant build script. You can grab the latest
Retroweaver from
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/retroweaver/retroweaver-2.0.5.zip. There
is already quite some generics comments which could be eas
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45146
Summary: duplicate license.txt constrain ClassLoader
Product: Fop
Version: 0.93
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
I can't speak for the broader market but for my usages anything prior to
Java 5 is "dead wood" and of no interest.
As of October of this year anything prior to Java 5 will be officially
unsupported by Sun except where you have a paid support contract with
them (including that for Solaris). Ad
+1 from me on a new poll for discussion.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 to being cautious about dropping support for Java 1.4 without
> consulting the user base first, i.e. +1 for another user poll, though I
> wouldn't do it before October.
> +1 to
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Guys,
I would like to raise this topic again: what about switching to Java 1.5
as a minimum requirement?
Hi Vincent,
I'm happy to allow the use of generics in trunk code if retroweaver is
used to maintain Java 1.4 support. I don't think the time is right to
remo
On Jun 5, 2008, at 13:27, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Does anyone know why does StaticContentLM implement its own breaker
(StaticContentBreaker) and breaks its content using the
PageBreakingAlgorithm? AFAIK descendants of a static-content
element are
not supposed to be broken over several pages.
It's right that the descendants of static-content should not be broken,
but using the breaker allows to make use of the stretch/shrink
functionality (min/opt/max stuff) without having to write extra
duplicate code just for static content.
On 05.06.2008 13:27:36 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Does anyo
+1 to being cautious about dropping support for Java 1.4 without
consulting the user base first, i.e. +1 for another user poll, though I
wouldn't do it before October.
+1 to putting the users' desires above the developers' desires.
+1 to moving to Java 1.5 when the time is right.
-0.5 (no veto) to
Dear Fop Devs,
I use retrotranslator for another project which has to run on specific
version of scientfic Linux, where only Java 1.4 is installed.
There are two steps for using retrotranslator:
- Use NO 1.5 classpath features, just generics: Works very well with
retrotranslator
- Use othe
On Jun 5, 2008, at 17:46, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Guys,
I would like to raise this topic again: what about switching to
Java 1.5
as a minimum requirement?
No objection from me. +1 on moving forward with this in the trunk.
Andreas
I would imagine that the availability of binary 1.4 compatibility should be
enough for most users.
I don't see how there should be any problems so long as we continue to try and use the Java 1.4
libraries and the generics features of 1.5. I have tested out Retroweaver briefly in the past and
Hi Guys,
I would like to raise this topic again: what about switching to Java 1.5
as a minimum requirement?
The End of Life transition period for Java 1.4 will end on the 30th of
October 2008 [1]. The next version of FOP (after 0.95) will probably not
have been released by this time, so we could
Hi,
Does anyone know why does StaticContentLM implement its own breaker
(StaticContentBreaker) and breaks its content using the
PageBreakingAlgorithm? AFAIK descendants of a static-content element are
not supposed to be broken over several pages.
Thanks,
Vincent
--
Vincent Hennebert
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45134
Vincent Hennebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43824
--- Comment #5 from Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-06-05 02:53:39
PST ---
I can probably tell you more tomorrow. Nothing's fixed, yet. I expect them to
want to contribute this back to FOP at some point and put it under the AL
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43824
--- Comment #4 from Antti Karanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-06-05 02:21:06 PST
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> [1] Incidentally, I'm going to a client today to coach them for implementing
> ODF output support.
This is very interesti
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45134
Summary: FOP unwarranted page split on table with numbre-rows-
spanned
Product: Fop
Version: 1.0dev
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows 2000
Status: NEW
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43606
--- Comment #3 from Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-06-05 01:28:37
PST ---
Maximilan, see http://markmail.org/message/ikryur27g6joxqk6 for hints.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=em
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43824
--- Comment #3 from Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-06-05 01:26:09
PST ---
Maximilian, this goes in the direction of supporting percentages in RTF output.
This is mostly done in the layout managers for the page-oriented output
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43825
--- Comment #3 from Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-06-05 01:17:54
PST ---
Maximilan, as Chris already noted, it is not possible to fully map fo:leader
into RTF. Some approximation might be possible. The place to implement thi
20 matches
Mail list logo
