xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r741616 - in /xmlgraphics/fop/branches/Temp_AreaTreeNewDesign/src/documentation: content/xdocs/trunk/intermediate.xml resources/images/if-architecture-overview.png
Date Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:53:24 GMT
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 11.02.2009 13:07:12 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>>> On 10.02.2009 13:22:01 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>>>> Hi Jeremias,
>>>> A few suggestions:
>> <snip/>
>>>>>      <section id="introduction">
>>>>>        <title>Introduction</title>
>>>>>        <p>
>>>>> -        The intermediate format (IF) is a proprietary XML format that
represents the area tree 
>>>>> -        generated by the layout engine. The area tree is conceptually
defined in the 
>>>>> +        Apache FOP now provides two different so-called intermediate
formats. The first one
>>>>> +        (let's call it the area tree XML format) is basically a 1:1
XML representation of the FOP's
>>>>> +        area tree generated by the layout engine. The area tree is conceptually
defined in the 
>>>>>          <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/slice1.html#section-N742-Formatting">XSL-FO
specification in chapter 1.1.2</a>.
>>>>> -        The IF can be generated through the area tree XML Renderer (the
>>>> Renaming this class into AreaTreeRenderer or AreaTreeXMLRenderer will
>>>> probably allow to avoid confusion in the future.
>>> -1 to that. Will break backwards-compatibility for those who are using
>>> this renderer directly. It would break at least two pieces of software I
>>> have.
>> Breaking backwards-compatibility because of an important change in an
>> API is a thing, simply have a class renamed is a non-issue if you ask
>> me. It’s just a small search/replace and recompilation.
> Ok, then "simply" rename FopFactory to FormattingObjectsProcessorFactory
> and see what the FOP users will tell you.

That has of course nothing to do. We are talking about a change that
would bring some clarification. Admittedly small, but every little

>> To make things a little bit smoother though, XMLRenderer could be made
>> deprecated with a suggestion to switch to AreaTree[XML]Renderer.
> And how would that make the situation any better?

That would give users the time to plan the adaptation of their code.

>>> If you you generate SAX events
>>> (AbstractXMLRenderer.setContentHandler()), working with MIME types isn't
>>> enough.
>> I’m missing the point here?
> If you're selecting the XMLRenderer via its MIME type, renaming
> XMLRenderer to anything else is a non-issue because it would be handled
> inside FOP. But if you need to send the AT XML as SAX events somewhere
> you have to instantiate XMLRenderer yourself.

Hmmm. But can’t that be done through the renderer options?

>>> Besides, I don't think that would really improve the whole thing
>>> much. After all, with the new IF, we're not primarily talking about
>>> renderers but something else (IFDocumentHandler/IFPainter).
>> It’s never too obvious. After all, the two sections in the documentation
>> are very similar.
> Yes, and there is just no way to make them any more dissimilar. Both are
> XML-based intermediate formats. Both have their use cases. Better to
> keep them close together so people know that there are two and how to
> deal with them.

Which is an additional reason why XMLRenderer could do with a name
change IMO. However, I’ve just seen Chris’ answer, and the majority


View raw message