xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <glenma...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Migration to commons-cli & avalonization
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2003 00:44:57 GMT
> But wouldn't that make the CLI command for Fop to be
> "Main" and not "Fop"?  (Things might get messy were
> other Java apps to follow with this convention!)

Why? You always have the fully qualified classname
when you use that
class: org.apache.fop[.cli].Main. "fop" is still in
the name, but Main
properly indicates that we're talking about a
startable class.

Yes, you're correct.  I was thinking that people set
up their CLASSPATHs so they don't have to type the
full package name, i.e., would just end up typing
"java Main" instead of "java FOP" but I forgot the
CLASSPATH just points to the JAR file, so the full
package name would be needed.

And as long as we keep fop.bat and fop.sh, etc., named
as-is, it wouldn't matter.

> For classes to remove, perhaps we should get rid of 
> the seldom-accessed Version class in the apps
> I think the Version should be kept as an attribute
> the FOP/Main class.  (If desired, I can submit a
> for this.)

That doesn't change anything. You just move the code.
Now, it's plain visible where the version number can
be found. Maybe we can read the version number from
the JAR manifest but I don't see a need to change


A version doesn't seem to be an object to me, it seems
more like an attribute of an object, perhaps better
stored in the manifest file as you state or in the Fop
class, the de facto "capital" (for want of a better
term) of the application.  But this issue is not that
important to me.


Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message