KDE Print porting - help needed

[Kurt Pfeifle]

Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Saturday 13 October 2007 17:09:26 Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
>> Supporting a PDF workflow does not necessitate to un-support a
>> PostScript workflow.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that was never implied or actually said.

Sorry if I misunderstood. However, even *this* mail does not
clarify everything to me.

> I must be getting 
> really bad at writing emails that you read that into my email.
> Thanks for pointing out the misconceptions that apparently got into my 
> mail; let me try to explain them here.
> 
> I wrote; 
>>> This will obviously mean users that want a more professional printing
>>> (aka PDF based) or want to print on Windows can't use Okular.
> 
> What I meant to state with this is that if the *user* wants a 
> non-postscript workflow he can't use Okular.

A Joe Doe *user* normally doesn't care what workflow the printing
components do use internally. He wants to print in KDE4, and he
wants to have *at least* the same set of functionality overall as
he has now (even if he has to wait for KDE 4.1 or 4.2 for every-
thing to arrive).

A power user does not have much choice for a non-PostScript work-
flow either. If he's on Unix, there is none. If he is on Windows,
there's nothing to pick either. He simply has to use the non-PS
(EMF-based) printing workflow that normal Windows apps use. What
happens to KDE apps running on Windows that need to print is un-
known to me ATM.

> Users on Windows are forced to use a non-postscript workflow since the 
> windows printing system doesn't support it. 

AFAIK, that is not true. It's just that Windows and MS do not use
it *by default*.

You should have a look at what "localspl.dll" can do. It can take
PostScript input, and run the locally installed printer driver
(*any* driver) to produce RAW format (RAW is what they call on
MS Windows a file that is "ready to print on the target device";
RAW isn't a specific format, it may be PostScript, ESC/P, HP/GL,
LIDIL, PCL,... whatever).

> I didn't make that choice, 
> nobody in KDE did.  So the support for postscript is not being taken 
> away, we just expand our goals and targets and our previously proven way 
> of working unfortunately needs to change to be applicable to those new 
> users.

Excuse me? Didn't Albert state that printing will no longer work
with okular (on *any* platform) given the API Alex Merry described?

Didn't then John Layt outline a workaround for Okular (but that does
print *pixmaps*, not PostScript) ??

Maybe I do again misunderstand... if so, I apologize.

> So, in short, if Okular thinks its important to allow the users of 
> Windows, or users that require PDF output then it needs to alter the way 
> it prints.

Can you re-phrase this statement, please? I do not understand what
you mean with it, and I do not want to presume.

> If it doesn't care about those users, all Okular needs to do is pipe its 
> output directly to Cups. Which puts it on par with what it did in KDE3

Untrue.

In KDE3 it piped its output to *kprinter*, and kprinter allowed the
user to do quite a few of sophisticated settings.

That's *very* different from piping output to CUPS directly.

If you pipe the PostScript output directly to CUPS, sure, it will
print. Somehow. But you are bereft of all options to set up your
print job in any sophisticated (bah, even in a very simple) way.

> ps;
> I have no intention in fighting or getting shot down so often as I have 
> been on this subject.  There seem to be quite some people that think its 
> fun to bash the people working on printing just because they have some 
> ideas on how to do it differently. Lets please all get along and put 
> treating people correctly above all. Thanks!

Sorry, if it came over like bashing, fighting or making fun of you.

My only concern is to re-get a fully featured KDE4 print system,
even if it takes until 4.1.

I don't have any idea about how to do it differently (in code).

But I have a few very elaborate ideas about what users need (and
what *I* need), and what the underlying print system is able to
do. And I have a very complete picture of what the KDE3 printing
system did. (All only from a [power] user perspective, not from
the developer one, mind you.).

And more and more I have the impression that you do not want to
discuss features you implement (because you have already a very
fixed idea in your mind about how you will do it), and that you
did not even fully understand and never looked at all the fea-
tures KDEPrint3 did implement [for users], and yet you aspire to,
and say you create a replacement for KDEPrint in KDE4 (even if
part of that replacement now moves to Qt 4.4).

Because you do not know the KDEPrint3 feature set fully, of course,
you didn't put up any thought about how you could possibly keep those
features, or make sure they can be re-added later.

How could you?

So Albert's complaint didn't come as a surprise to me.

-- 
Kurt Pfeifle
System & Network Printing Consultant ---- Linux/Unix/Windows/Samba/CUPS
Infotec Deutschland GmbH  .....................  Hedelfinger Strasse 58
A RICOH Company  ...........................  D-70327 Stuttgart/Germany