Subject: [xsl] Status of FOP From: Arved Sandstrom <Arved_37@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:13:58 -0400 |
Hi, all, and best of the season I want to shed some light on Apache XML FOP. My perspective is biased, but I'm trying to take that into account. First, FOP is not currently the fastest, the most optimizing, or the most feature-complete XSL-FO processor. The members of this project have never suggested that it is any of those, and in point of fact any major optimization is not even a goal at the moment - completing features is. We are on track, I believe, to having a reliable and spec-compliant (at least basic conformance, and extended in areas) FO processor within some months after the CR concludes. At that time we will version FOP as 1.0, and announce our _first_ _production_ release. I stress the word _production_. We have never suggested that FOP is currently not developmental. There are a number of commercial XSL-FO processors available. In contrast to the FOP project team, which more than most Apache XML projects consists entirely of volunteers (I mean we all have real jobs), these processors are the effort of a full-time crew working over an extended period. There is no comparison between the effort expended by such a FT team and the amount of time that we can put in on FOP. For a number of XSL-FO situations I'd probably end up using one of the commercial processors myself, at least right now. I don't see these commercial efforts as competitors, and the reason I don't is because they advertise themselves as "production" and we don't. I'm stressing all this because I want to make it clear that for at least another 3-4 months FOP is going to lack some features, and you shouldn't use it for production. If you want the best environment, IMO, in which to assist with volunteer, part-time, open-source development of XSL-FO, then FOP is your best bet. If you want a shrink-wrapped production-ready FO processor, then FOP is currently not it. Although it does handle a lot of situations nevertheless. What's gotten me a little bit riled up is the use of FOP as a basis of comparison for commercial implementations. I think this is unfair to the user community. FOP is not pretending to be ready, and I take it a little bit amiss when it's used as the standard of comparison by commercial software. I'm pretty thick-skinned, but to be honest I'd like it if the commercial implementations compare to each other, not to FOP. I know it adds lustre to the product marketing when you can say "our product X kicks Apache XML FOP's ass", but this is not a proper comparison at the present. When FOP announces a production release, then compare to FOP and let the fur fly. :-) Whew! I feel better anyway...that's been building up for a while, particularly after working all this year with a _small_, _devoted_ and _part-time_ developer community. The other point to be made, too, and this is big, is this - Apache XML projects aren't, despite some appearances, all about getting this software or that software out on the shelf. They are also about promoting open-source development that is transparent to all observers and participants, fostering participation, being effectively guided by requirements voiced in the user community, and not being hijacked by any interests. I believe strongly that FOP has been very good in this regard. Producing FOP 1.0 is not our only goal... I hope this clarifies the status of FOP, and how I hope it is perceived, without ruffling too many feathers. I hasten to add that this is not a rant against commercial implementations - I'm glad they are around. I'm just not completely happy with the evolving perception of FOP as the standard to compare to...please wait a few months. That's all I ask. :-) Again, best of the season. Regards, Arved Sandstrom XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Status of FOP, AndrewWatt2000 | Thread | Re: [xsl] Status of FOP, Nikolai Grigoriev |
Re: [xsl] SORTING XML FILE WITH JS, Robert Koberg | Date | [xsl] Re: Status of FOP, Arved Sandstrom |
Month |