xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clay Leeds <cle...@medata.com>
Subject Re: validateChildNode prevents extensions.
Date Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:57:54 GMT

On Aug 29, 2004, at 1:15 PM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 29.08.2004 20:57:54 Simon Pepping wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 08:15:38PM +0200, J.Pietschmann wrote:
>>> Glen Mazza wrote:
>>>> You have a new FO, you're going to need to code for
>>>> them--including ordering and cardinality--in those
>>>> parents that accept them,
>>> This does *not* necessarily mean that *you* should arrange
>>> that the extension writer has to replace core FO classes.
>>> In fact do either:
>>> 1. Declare FOP wont support extensions except in
>>>  instream-foreign-object, ever, or
>>> 2. Provide hooks so that extension writers can get their
>>>  extensions running with FOP, with or without extensive
>>>  validation of the extended content model, but at least
>>>  *without* having to rewrite and replace core FO classes.
>> My thoughts are along the same lines that Jörg has argued. I think we
>> should do option 2. vCN() should be written such that it allows this.
> While I choose not to participate in FO-tree and layout engine design
> but having written a number of FOP extensions, I agree with this view,
> too.

I tend to prefer option 2: an extension writer should not have to 
modify the FOP source in order to get the extension to work. (In fact, 
when I think of extensions, I think of them like "PLUGINS" to 
Photoshop... not only do they work, but--in a perfect world--it would 
be nice if they could also work with other programs that support "Adobe 
Photoshop PLUGINS" as well--e.g., RenderX, Antenna House, etc.).

As for any 'extensions' built-in to FOP--namely fox:--I believe they/it 
should be removed from FOP, and turned into a 'real' extension whilst 
retaining their/its current functionality. This 'new' extension should 
then be distributed with the FOP binary and source in a 
PLUGINS^H^H^H^H^H^H^H extensions/ sub-directory.

> It must be stated, though, that 99 out of 100 users
> will not be writing extensions.  Their needs, a solid
> FOP out relatively soon, must not be ignored.
> Glen Mazza

Glen's right on the money, that 99 out of 100 users will not be writing 
extensions. However, that 1/100 user might be an IBM developer, writing 
the killer app used by all of the IBM folks (and/or become part of an 
OEM distribution).

Clay Leeds - cleeds@medata.com
Web Developer - Medata, Inc. - <http://www.medata.com/>
PGP Public Key: <https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc>

View raw message