xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <...@jeremias-maerki.ch>
Subject Re: Media or paper tray selection in FOP
Date Tue, 09 May 2006 13:04:09 GMT

On 09.05.2006 13:35:11 Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> <snip/>
> > Conclusion:
> > Using the master-name approach instead of including printer-specific
> > commands adds flexibility for media and paper tray selection. The only
> > thing that will be useful is a parameter to FOP and/or an extension
> > value in XSL-FO which specifies the actualy printer that the print job
> > is to be generated for so the renderer can use the right set of mapping
> > rules.
> I'm sorry Jeremias, your arguments here have failed to convince me that 
> your suggested approach is the best way. I'm still in favour of using 
> extension elements for PS, PCL and AFP. It should be possible to add the 
> extension elements into the Intermediate Format XML, as the printer to 
> be used may not be known until later in the processing (as you already 
> suggested and that bit I agree with)

Ok. Maybe this gives a new light into the whole topic: renderer
configuration vs. extension in XSL-FO. Namely, because you highlight the
third possibility that the extension elements may be injected in the
intermediate format rather than the XSL-FO.

> If the master name to media name mapping is placed in the configuration 
> file then there is no means to override it for a single document.


> After 
> all there is only 1 configuration file, and it cannot be changed at 
> runtime.

Nope. You can can do custom configuration for a single renderer instance
if you like. No problem.

> Allowing extension elements in the IF XML is the most flexible 
> way. Then you don't need to know the printer when working in XSLT and 
> FO, but when the IF XML is processed the destination printer should be 
> known. (It is in our system anyway :)

Ok, that's a way to approach it I did not think about. In the systems I
built, the renderer configuration would always have been sufficient.

> As you've already mentioned in PS there is more than one way of 
> specifying tray selection. So assuming one particular way (/MediaType) 
> would be rather limiting in my opinion and not desirable. Perhaps you 
> didn't mean that, but that is my understanding of what you said.

You got me wrong. The /MediaType way is actually the most flexible and
most standard way for high volume printers. The printer operator can
adjust the tray setup and select the target printer as he likes right
before printing.

> I also think this is a little bit Out of Scope for FOP. FOP should 
> provide some means to achieve tray selection via the Extension element 
> mechanism, but providing master name to media name mapping in the 
> configuration along with making assumptions about the Postscript and PCL 
> to be inserted into the output is going a step too far I think.

Sorry Chris, but the additional logic needed for that is trivial. I
don't see why this alone would make it out of scope.

Just an idea: How about we generalize the whole thing and allow to
specify the renderer configuration as an extension element in FO and IF
(intermediate format). The renderer is configured using Avalon
Configuration normally through the RendererFactory. If after starting
the renderer an extension element is received with some additional renderer
configuration you can simply overload the existing configuration. Should
not be hard to achieve.

Jeremias Maerki

View raw message