xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Bowditch <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: Switch from AddLMVisitor to FObj.addLayoutManager()
Date Tue, 03 Aug 2004 08:11:43 GMT
Glen Mazza wrote:

> Well, the number of patches and enhancements made to
> layout/rendering has only been about 2-3 per month in
> the 12 months that we've had AddLMVisitor.  FOP won't
> finish at that rate, and that *will* affect the users.

I agree that FOP wont finish at its current rate of development! Not sure how 
to change this and still keep a roof over my head. LOL

> In the 24 months preceding that change (i.e., the
> original design I'm recommending we return to), I
> believe it was several times higher, perhaps an
> average of 25 changes per month.  Also, the developers
> at that time seemed to obtain a much higher grokkage
> of the layout/rendering code base.

The statistics dont tell the full story. The reason the patch rate was so much 
higher before the Visitor pattern was introduced is because Keiron (one of the 
main architects of the redesign) was allowed to work on FOP as part of his 
paid job, and he seemed to disappear not long before Victor started his 
modularization efforts. Also because the maintenance code had not yet been 
frozen (of course, you might not be including patches to branches in your 

> Nice things happen when you drop the IQ needed to work
> in the code--and simplifications have a habit of
> begetting more simplifications, as relationships that
> were previously obscured/unknown become clearer.[1]  

I tend to agree, but I personally dont find the Vistor pattern the reason the 
code is so complex. Its the getNextBreakPoss/addAreas methods in TextLM and 
LineLM that are scarey.

> In other words, I may be able to propose even more
> simplifications after this on things I currently can't
> see with the code as it is.  Let's try to get this
> system down to something that a 12 year old can finish
> in a weekend.  (I believe Victor has one he can lend
> us as a guinea pig.)


> At any rate, given that most FO's generate and/or
> return areas (per the Rec), I don't have a problem
> with one selecting and initializing its own
> LayoutManager.  That is basically what happens anyway,
> even with the middle man in between.

I dont have a problem with that either. I remain -0 on this change.


View raw message