Version 5.12 of QuickPDF
Printed From: Debenu Quick PDF Library - PDF SDK Community Forum
Category: For Users of the Library
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Description: Discussion board for Debenu Quick PDF Library and Debenu PDF Viewer SDK
URL: http://www.quickpdf.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=207
Printed Date: 22 Nov 24 at 7:38PM
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Version 5.12 of QuickPDF
Posted By: Michel_K17
Subject: Version 5.12 of QuickPDF
Date Posted: 13 Dec 05 at 10:57PM
Sorry for getting your hopes up!
Although, I am not completely kidding... I have incorporated the fix for the jpg's being created when printing (from swb1) and re-compiled it into v5.12. Works great! Now, swb1 has also found and fixed a memory leak that cost him 10 hours of his life (thank you). I could incorporate that change too, compile it as v5.13, and make it available for download from this forum (I think I can, since you need the registration code to be able to use it afterwards). Here's the problem: I am not a Delphi head. Therefore, I am not sure I would want to blindly incorporate every suggestion or new feature that comes along without being able to put a critical thinking hat on and think about the future impact this could have. However, is this something we could do as a team? Enough interest out there? I can certainly help manage the effort, track bugs & todo lists, provide hosting services, etc. Anybody else interested in providing services such as testing, writing code? Updating the manual? Just curious at the level of interest out there. |
Replies:
Posted By: Ingo
Date Posted: 14 Dec 05 at 1:31AM
|
Hi!
I think this is a good idea. Not only for fixing bugs... Extending the exisitng functions should be possible, too 'cause the users still need the licence key (i agree with you). BTW: Where is the download link to 5.13? ------------- Cheers, Ingo |
Posted By: swb1
Date Posted: 14 Dec 05 at 10:23AM
|
I agree with Michel_K17 that it would be unwise to just make indiscriminate changes and enhancements. I have 9+ years of Delphi experience and some of what I saw yesterday, while debugging, made my head spin. I added one line of code and I can not be 100% certain that it will not cause something somewhere-else to blow up. This is a fairly complex code pile and there are some programming practices and techniques with which I am unfamiliar. My brief venture has left me feeling that this could be a daunting, perhaps overwhelming task. However, I am new to the library. I would like to hear from other Delphi programmers in the group who have taken a comprehensive look at the code and can give an opinion upon its maintainability. I would really like to see this library become stable and reliable. It would be reassuring to know that there is an ongoing effort to improve it. Thanks |
Posted By: Michel_K17
Date Posted: 14 Dec 05 at 11:54PM
|
Ingo,
Fair question. v5.12 is available (on my PC), and I could compile a v5.13 with the fix suggested. I'll work on that next week (too much work right now) and make it available for download. Steve, Thank you for your post. "Daunting and overwhelming" definitely reflects my sentiments too, all this despite my extensive 9+ minutes of Delphi experience! I'm guessing that establishing a "map" of the functions that describes the objective for each, and "who-calls-what" would be a first step at understanding the big picture?
You mentioned "stable and reliable". Generally speaking, I have not had too many bad experiences in that area. Do you have any specific functions in mind that are giving you stability problems? |
Posted By: Ingo
Date Posted: 15 Dec 05 at 2:16AM
|
Hi!
QuickPDF offers a very wide range of functions. I don't expect a bugless package in this case. ISED had problems with the overview and i fear we will have problems, too. But this can't be a reason not to modify the code? I don't think that's a problem to "create" a new bug while eliminating an old one. The problem is not to react when a new error occurs (the iSED-problem). BTW: I've only the licence for the compiled version. Is here anybody who want to sell his source licence? ------------- Cheers, Ingo |
Posted By: JanN
Date Posted: 15 Dec 05 at 8:58AM
|
Of course, some enhancements to the library would be nice.
I already made three changes to it: - removed debug code in uPDFImageDecoder - new function PrintDocumentToFile - new unit uPDFDecimalSeparator and changes in several units for making number-string format and conversion thread-safe I am more concerned about the PDF specifications. What the library needs, is to be compatible with the new version 1.6. What do you think? |
Posted By: swb1
Date Posted: 15 Dec 05 at 10:17AM
|
Stable and reliable are relative terms. As I stated in another post: my application runs unattended and non-stop for months at a time. even a small memory leak is unacceptable. For the most part the code that I have looked at suggests that the developer(s) had decent coding skills. That, combined with the fact that I do not use very many of the libraries functions, lead me to believe that I won’t find many more leaks. In my limited experience, the QuickPDF library seems very good. I bought Gnostice (with source code), because I thought that support was important. Unfortunately the Gnositce text extraction utilities are not comprehensive enough for my needs. So I am now fully committed to QuickPDF. Therefore I am more that happy to make debugging contributions to the group when it falls within the specs of my application. Regards, |
Posted By: Michel_K17
Date Posted: 15 Dec 05 at 10:15PM
|
Thank you Steve for the offer to get involved. I'll do a bit of research to see how the "open source" teams organize themselves.
Jan, you asked "what the library needs, is to be compatible with the new version 1.6. What do you think?" I guess I would say that QuickPDF is compatible with Spec v1.6 in that each new version of the specification has been backward compatible. However, QuickPDF does not provide support for any of the new features, and that is very true. Adding new features could be a challenge, perhaps even exceedingly slow without the right talent. Ideally, the original author of the library (I don't think it was Michael Khumano) would be the best person to join this forum.
I did spend about 2 weeks with the v1.3 specification two years ago, and started writing a class to parse PDF files, make modifications, and write back the modified PDF files. However, I did not get far: I found quickPDF and never looked back. Nonetheless, it was a good educational experience. The construction of the PDF file is logical, and does not have too many surprises. The specification was very well written. |
Posted By: Michel_K17
Date Posted: 15 Dec 05 at 10:25PM
|
Jan,
By the way: would you be willing to provide the changes you made to the library? I could integrate those as well and make this available as part of an "update". |
Posted By: Ingo
Date Posted: 16 Dec 05 at 2:17AM
|
Hi!
I think Kevin Newman was the first known person behind QuickPDF. If he wasn't one of the developers he was in any case the main responsible person... but anyway... it seems that the people there in south africa don't wanna speak to us ;-) ------------- Cheers, Ingo |
Posted By: JanN
Date Posted: 16 Dec 05 at 3:49AM
|
Michel,
I will prepare the source and send it to you next week. I need to translate the comments to english first. |
Posted By: Michel_K17
Date Posted: 16 Dec 05 at 2:46PM
|
Thanks!
OK, so we can look forward to the first release of an improved version of the library in January which will be v5.14.
|
Posted By: chicks
Date Posted: 16 Dec 05 at 3:18PM
|
Cool. Will it be the Delphi version only, or do you have the build scripts for the ActiveX and DLL versions as well?
|
Posted By: Ingo
Date Posted: 16 Dec 05 at 5:58PM
|
Hi!
Very cool i ;-) ...and i think it's legal. ------------- Cheers, Ingo |
Posted By: winalot
Date Posted: 18 Dec 05 at 3:56PM
|
Hi Michael,
Any chance of posting the actual source code line changes? In this manner those of use who have the source can incorporate the fixes into our code and still maintain source rather than just grab your DCU's. I'm guessing the snippets of code will not be illegal as only someone with source will make use of them? BTW: Can we start a thread clearly stating all known bugs in QuickPDF? Then those with source could potentially fix known issues (I know I'd look into fixing them). Keep up the good work. Thanks |
Posted By: Michel_K17
Date Posted: 18 Dec 05 at 4:45PM
|
You bet! The source code changes are the ones already posted by Steve (nickname: swb1), and I have not received the changes from JanN (see his post above).
Good news: we already have a "Bug Reports" section in the forum for the purpose you suggested. It is located here: http://www.quickpdf.org/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=12 - http://www.quickpdf.org/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=12 Finally, I will be working in the new year in a more organized and formal method to track bugs and changes as well as versioning so that everybody knows where we are, and where we need to go. I may even go as far as publishing with everybody's help a "roadmap". And it sounds like you might even help us with your programming skills. That would be really great!
Cheers! |
Posted By: SuperDave
Date Posted: 24 Dec 05 at 5:23AM
|
Hi Guys,
This is a great idea and I'd really like to take part but the cost of the source code ($500) makes it an expensive club to buy into!!! |
Posted By: Ingo
Date Posted: 24 Dec 05 at 6:33AM
|
Hi Dave!
I don't know if it's legal but it's called "Site license Including full source code 500.00 per site". So why don't buy the sources with a few interested users here as the "www.quickpdf.org-community" (that's a site ;-) If we are four or so i'll be interested, too. ------------- Cheers, Ingo |
Posted By: seva
Date Posted: 24 Dec 05 at 8:55AM
|
I will be interest too. ------------- Seva Minkovich www.etecad.com seva@etecad.com |
Posted By: SuperDave
Date Posted: 24 Dec 05 at 9:11AM
|
Great idea Ingo!
Count me in. If there are any others like seva who are watching this forum and worrying about iSedQP then add yourself to the "www.quickpdf.org-community" site list and the cost will come down for us all. SD |
Posted By: Michel_K17
Date Posted: 24 Dec 05 at 9:46AM
|
I agree. I belive that the word used in the license is "organization", which, I agree, is a pretty loose definition. So, it would go something like this:
OPTION #1
OPTION #2
I'm really happy to see the amount of discussion on this topic. Thank you. We could be on to something. I will check the local (Kansas) laws to see what would be required. It is really easy to establish an LLC for an individual, but harder for a group of "investors". The attraction of creating an LLC would be the protection it offers from future lawsuits. I think we might need the help of a lawyer. I'm also a bit worried about the tax implications of collecting a fee. I'm thinking that we should not establish this "organization" until after iSed's web site disappears off the internet so that we can also claim later that we only acted in the best interest of the product. The disapearance of the web site would be a clear sign that the product has been "abandoned". (but we can purchase the source code before hand. We should also consider purchasing ised's domain name as well when it becomes available, if anything just to use it to redirect traffic to our own web site. Any comments? |
Posted By: Ingo
Date Posted: 25 Dec 05 at 3:04PM
|
Hi Michel!
Few of us have already payed for the source code. Should they pay, too? I think these people should be members of the new organization without paying anything. Option #2 seems for me the best. We can start "soft" now and "big" later if the original iSED-Domain left the web. For the "new organization" we should buy the latest sources fast... perhaps in two months it's impossible? One problem: WHICH sources? There are many versions? I'll need as minimum version for d5, better d2005, best d2006 ;-) ------------- Cheers, Ingo |