xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert C. Leif" <rl...@rleif.com>
Subject RE: Why is FO(P) a superior model than what most proprietary tool s propose
Date Wed, 01 May 2002 05:07:40 GMT
From: Bob Leif
To: Matt Savino et al.

I believe that, "good Ada app-server", is covered by the following
abbreviated version of a posting from Pascal Obry, which I received from
Team-Ada. Since JGNAT is an Ada compiler that produces J codes, you may
not need a translator. Parenthetically, I have nothing against J codes.
I believe that the translators from Java to Ada do exist and suggest
that you post to Team-Ada to obtain more information. However if I
remember correctly, direct translation from Java to Ada produces code
that has a large number of pointers, which are not normally present in
Ada code.

Since Quest Diagnostics produces medical software, you will find the
high level of safety associated with a validated Ada compiler to be
suitable for a regulated industry. I will gladly send you some of my
publications that are in PDF form.  
Pascal Obry [p.obry@wanadoo.fr]; Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)

A W S - Ada Web Server
                            1.2 release / SOAP 0.9

   Dmitriy Anisimkov
   Pascal Obry                                               April 29th,

Dmitriy Anisimkov and I are very happy to announce the availability of
the AWS 1.2 release. The API could change slightly at this stage but
should be fairly stable now.

AWS stand for Ada Web Server. It is not a real Web Server like Apache.
It is a small yet powerful HTTP component to embedded in any
applications. It means that you can communicate with your application
using a standard Web browser and this without the need for a Web Server.
AWS is fully developed in Ada with GNAT.

AWS support SOAP, Server Push, HTTPS/SSL, client HTTP, hotplug
modules... We have worked very hard to make this release as stable as
possible. Note that Hotplug modules are very nice but have a potentially
security hole as it is implemented today. A new secure implementation
will be proposed in a future version.

The SOAP implementation has been validated on


AWS User's Mailing List:

AWS Home Page (sources and documentation):

Templates_Parser sources:
   Templates_Parser module (sources and documentation) is provided with
   distribution. Latest version of this module and the documentation can
   found at:


   Templates_Parser is a very useful add-on for AWS. You should have a
look at
   it if you plan to develop a Web service. Templates_Parser permits to
   completely separate the HTML design from the Ada code.

   Some other Templates engine are WebMacro, FreeMarker, PHP, ASP, JSP
   Velocity. All of them are based on explicit iterators (#foreach with
   variable) where Templates_Parser is based on implicit ones (you use a
   intuitive table iterator). Be sure to check the documentation. Only
   the Velocity project has the goal to support complete separation of
   design and code.

   You need at least version 3.14 to use AWS 1.2.


XMLada (optional):
   You need this library only if you want to use AWS SOAP feature. You
   at least XMLada 0.7.1.


Socket binding:
   Since AWS 1.2 you need at least version 1.0 of the Socket binding.

   for Win32:

   for UNIX:

POSIX Binding (optional) :..........(Truncated)


-----Original Message-----
From: Savino, Matt C [mailto:Matt.C.Savino@questdiagnostics.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:39 PM
To: 'fop-user@xml.apache.org'
Subject: RE: Why is FO(P) a superior model than what most proprietary
tool s propose

From: Matt Savino
To: Bob Leif

Sounds great. Tell me where I can get a good Ada app-server and a
translator for all the existing code--and I'll run it by the corporate

Matt Savino

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert C. Leif [mailto:rleif@rleif.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:35 PM
> To: fop-user@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Why is FO(P) a superior model than what most proprietary
> tool s propose
> From: Bob Leif
> To: Matt Savino
> It sounds like you need the performance of an efficient compiled
> language that performs wherever possible its inheritance at compile
> rather than run time. Ada is an ISO standard which is 
> available as a GNU
> compiler, GNAT. It should be noted that Java is a proprietary language
> owned by SUN.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Savino, Matt C [mailto:Matt.C.Savino@questdiagnostics.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:01 PM
> To: 'fop-user@xml.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: Why is FO(P) a superior model than what most proprietary
> tool s propose
> We're using FOP in a production environment to render some management
> reports and a very complicated lab report. We've had to limit the
> management
> reports to about 2000 rows (~50 page PDF) because of FOP's 
> memory issues
> w/large PDFs. Also I worry about serious slowdown if we ever 
> get 3 or 4
> users on the same instance of the app server all running a 
> decent sized
> at once. Does anyone know if wrapping FOP in a session bean 
> would allow
> me
> to distribute processing around to unused servers or otherwise handle
> the
> java.lang.outOfMemoryError better? (We're on Weblogic 6.1)
> I compared FOP to RenderX from XEP. RenderX was the only solution that
> really mathces FOP's profile (XSL:FO based, java-based or at least
> platform
> neutral, no extra servers to run or programs to install - if there are
> any
> more out there, please post). For the report I was running, FOP was
> about 10
> times faster than RenderX. But from most accounts performance between
> the
> two should similar. I figure there must be something 
> particular about my
> stylesheet that RenderX didn't like. So I called XEP to see 
> what kind of
> support my interest in purchasing their $5k/cpu product might garner.
> They
> weren't very helpful but did say they were insanely busy. I have a
> feeling
> if you could come up with a high-performing commerical all 
> Java FO->PDF
> engine, you'd be very rich very quick.
> Matt Savino

View raw message