incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <>
Subject Re: New Incubator Proposal: Sanselan - a java image library
Date Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:28:23 GMT

On 27.07.2007 17:04:41 Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hey,
> On 7/27/07, Carsten Ziegeler <> wrote:
> > together with Charles M. Chen I came up with a proposal to move the
> > great open source java image library, Sanselan, to Apache.
> >
> > You'll find all the details here:
> >
> >
> > Now, currently we are looking for interested parties, especially for
> > mentors and a sponsoring project, perhaps commons would be a good place
> > for sanselan?
> +1.  I like the effort in general, and I'd be willing to help if you
> need a mentor.

BTW, I could also help as mentor but not before October 2007. I also
like the effort, but my itch here isn't that big.

> As for what existing Apache project Sanselan would go into, I'm not
> sure.  Commons is an option, since Sanselan is a component to be used
> by other applications, not its own stand-alone thing, and image
> processing is a common requirement.

I agree. Commons is probably the best place.

> The questions about Java ImageIO and/or FOP and/or Batik interactions
> are interesting, but not critical IMHO.  We don't limit ourselves to
> only one project in one area.  It's nice to chat and coordinate where
> possible, but neither Sanselan nor other projects need to kill
> themselves to comply with someone else's API.

Agreed. I hope my note didn't suggest anything else. I mean FOP could
easily work against the Sanselan API instead of ImageIO but generally
the usefulness of Sanselan would increase a lot with an ImageIO adapter.

A thing I forgot in my first message: The Sanselan page indicates that
GIF is supported as well as TIFF with LZW compression. It should be
noted that the LZW algorithm [1] has patent issues although in most
countries (if not all) the patent has by now expired. If this
functionality should be kept I suggest to involve the legal affairs
committee. Personally, I'd remove the functionality just out of
principle. The German WikiPedia entry [2] mentions that many experts
think that decoding only doesn't fall under the patent. Maybe just the
encoding capability should be removed.


Jeremias Maerki

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message