xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Finn Bock <bck...@worldonline.dk>
Subject Re: validateChildNode prevents extensions.
Date Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:22:18 GMT

> Oh, when I meant "alter the system" I also meant
> adding classes, using different classes, etc., i.e.,
> some things need to be done beforehand to accomodate a
> new element.

Come on! That leaves "alter the system" without any meaning. Recompiling 
modified sources into a new fop.jar would IMO mean alter the system.

Here is how extensions should work:


and that is effectively what I have done.

> BTW, without divulging too much that may hurt your
> interests, would you mind explaining your reluctance
> to just modify FOP source (replace classes, etc.) 
> for what you are trying to market?  Is it licensing
> issues--or is it more for programmatic style/user
> convenience?  I want to better understand your
> reluctance on this matter.

Legally the seperation between FOP and extension have placed a solid 
wall between my opensource fop-dev work and my commercial extension. My 
client cant claim ownership of any of the fop-dev work since the 
extension didn't require *any* changes to fop.

Commercially, trying to sell an fork of FOP in order to sell an 
extension to FOP will never fly.


View raw message