[brailleblaster] Re: itex2MML
- From: "John J. Boyer" <john.boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 22:57:19 -0600
Laura,
I just downloaded the current version of itex2MML. You shouldn't have to
worry about licensing.
Java can send files to a pipe. If itex2MML is a true filter it should be
able to accept its input from a pipe and deliver its output to a pipe.
If I understand things correctly, both pipes could be a Java ByteStream.
So your Java code might set up the pipes and then call itex2MML. I think
ODT2braille may do something similar with xml2brl. I think Bert Frees is
on this list. Maybe he will give us some answers.
We mmay encounter similar cases in the future, where programs with
desired capoabilities are command-line filters. You might consider
writing generalized Java code for handling them. It could be very
useful. It would go into a new package org.brailleblaster.util
John
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 09:48:37PM -0600, qubit wrote:
> This is for JohnB or anyone else who wants to comment -- first, before I dig
> deeper into itex2MML, I went and got the latest version. John, is there a
> licensing reason you are looking at the older version, or was that just a
> convenient evaluation copy on your system?
> Anyway, I am now working from 1.4.5
>
> Second, there are functions that will work easily for JNI or even JNA, but
> there is a main program that collects all kinds of options and sets global
> variables before translating the text. This is a C++ file -- I don't know
> if the rest of it is compiled as C or C++.
> Anyway, itex2MML is written to be a command line filter, not something
> loaded and kept resident. It isn't hard to reinitialize the globals each
> time brailleblaster calls the library, but I am wondering if in addition,
> brailleblaster would have any need to change these options. In particular,
> should I create library methods to mimick main() processing any of the same
> command line options? Brailleblaster wouldn't even need to change the
> option names, just pass them as an argument.
>
> Finally, if I'm going to hack apart the main program to make a reasonable
> interface to brailleblaster, wouldn't there be an easier approach of just
> running itex2MML unchanged as a separate process and have java feed it the
> right arguments and then collect the output stream?
> In short, should we hack into brailleblaster to link with a library, or just
> keep it pure java and run the filter to translate to MML? Little or no
> maintenance required to upgrade to new versions of itex2MML. This would
> slow the translation down, of course, but it would mean one less JNI.
>
> Am I barking up the wrong tree?
> Decisions.
> --le
>
>
--
John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer
Abilitiessoft, Inc.
http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Madison, Wisconsin USA
Developing software for people with disabilities
Other related posts:
