On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> The issue is, itext-5.0.0+ dropped some other part of its code, which
> our xml patch was depending on. In particular, the rtf support of
> itext moved to a separate project 
... and I can't make itextrtf build against iText 5.0.x :(
> 1- Package the new project separately. And move the xml patch to this package.
A lot of changes will need to be made to make it build against iText
Uh oh. Not good.
> 2- Drop rtf bits from our xml patch (I don't know if this is
> I didn't check. overholt?)
This may be a good option but even without the RTF stuff, it will
require patching to get the XML bits to compile. For one thing, the
HTML stuff has changed; see:
"* Removal of SimpleCell, SimpleTable.
* Removal of Table, Cell, Row, PdfTable, PdfCell."
Would you like me to continue investigating this situation, with an end
goal of being able to build Doxia 1.1.2 against iText 5.0.1?
It is all up to you. I don't. know of anybody who really needs itext5
for the time being. I am totally fine staying with 2.7.
So, other than maven doxia stuff there are the following packages that
depend on itext:
- pdftk: dead upstream. It is already patched to the extent that
almost half of its code is written by us. More patching won't hurt :)
- tuxguitar, libfonts, liblayout: I just verified that upstreams of
these project didn't convert to itext5 yet.
I wrote patches for the above for itext5 (just changed the include
paths) and they seem to be operational. So for the time being (again),
we are in good shape if we are to stay with 2.7.
> 3- Don't update itext. Stick with 2.1.7 for now.
This is easiest but until Doxia either moves to a newer iText (which I'm
not sure is even possible) or uses fop instead of iText, this will still
be a thorn in our side.
Another option is maintaining iText 2.x as "itext2" and moving the main
itext package to 5.x. We can also go back to the Doxia people and ask
them about this situation.
Eh... I don't like doing this if there is really no need to have two
versions simultaneously. We may consider this in the future.
Thanks for doing this work and for investigating possibilities,
No problem. Let us stick to 2.7 and wait until someone yells at us :)