Pros of openhtmltopdf

• Better support for modern CSS and HTML5 features
• More accurate rendering of complex layouts and designs
• Active development with frequent updates and bug fixes

Cons of openhtmltopdf

• Slower performance for large documents or high-volume processing
• Larger file size and memory footprint
• Steeper learning curve for advanced customization

Code Comparison

OpenPDF:

PdfWriter writer = PdfWriter.getInstance(document, new FileOutputStream("output.pdf"));
document.open();
XMLWorkerHelper.getInstance().parseXHtml(writer, document, new FileInputStream("input.html"));
document.close();

openhtmltopdf:

PdfRendererBuilder builder = new PdfRendererBuilder();
builder.withUri("input.html");
builder.toStream(new FileOutputStream("output.pdf"));
builder.run();

Both libraries offer straightforward ways to convert HTML to PDF, but openhtmltopdf provides more modern and flexible options for handling complex layouts and styles. OpenPDF, on the other hand, is generally faster and more lightweight, making it suitable for simpler conversions or high-volume processing tasks.

Pros of itext-java

• More comprehensive feature set, including advanced PDF manipulation capabilities
• Better performance for large-scale PDF generation and processing
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of itext-java

• Stricter licensing terms (AGPL or commercial license required for many use cases)
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Higher resource consumption for simple PDF tasks

Code Comparison

OpenPDF example:

PdfDocument pdf = new PdfDocument(new PdfWriter("output.pdf"));
Document document = new Document(pdf);
document.add(new Paragraph("Hello, World!"));
document.close();

itext-java example:

PdfWriter writer = new PdfWriter("output.pdf");
PdfDocument pdf = new PdfDocument(writer);
Document document = new Document(pdf);
document.add(new Paragraph("Hello, World!"));
document.close();

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for creating simple PDF documents. However, itext-java provides more advanced features and customization options for complex PDF manipulation tasks, while OpenPDF focuses on simplicity and ease of use for basic PDF generation.

Pros of JasperReports

• More comprehensive reporting solution with advanced features like charting and cross-tabulation
• Supports multiple output formats including PDF, HTML, Excel, and CSV
• Offers a visual report designer (Jaspersoft Studio) for easier report creation

Cons of JasperReports

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Larger footprint and potentially slower performance for simple PDF generation tasks
• Commercial licensing for some advanced features and support

Code Comparison

OpenPDF (simple PDF generation):

PdfWriter writer = new PdfWriter("output.pdf");
PdfDocument pdf = new PdfDocument(writer);
Document document = new Document(pdf);
document.add(new Paragraph("Hello World!"));
document.close();

JasperReports (basic report generation):

JasperReport jasperReport = JasperCompileManager.compileReport("report.jrxml");
Map<String, Object> parameters = new HashMap<>();
JasperPrint jasperPrint = JasperFillManager.fillReport(jasperReport, parameters, dataSource);
JasperExportManager.exportReportToPdfFile(jasperPrint, "output.pdf");

Both libraries serve different purposes. OpenPDF is lightweight and focused on PDF manipulation, while JasperReports is a full-fledged reporting solution with broader capabilities but increased complexity.

Pros of PDFBox

• More comprehensive feature set, including PDF creation, manipulation, and extraction
• Larger and more active community, resulting in frequent updates and better support
• Better documentation and extensive examples

Cons of PDFBox

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API
• Larger library size, which may impact application size and performance

Code Comparison

OpenPDF:

PdfReader reader = new PdfReader("input.pdf");
PdfStamper stamper = new PdfStamper(reader, new FileOutputStream("output.pdf"));
stamper.close();
reader.close();

PDFBox:

PDDocument document = PDDocument.load(new File("input.pdf"));
document.save("output.pdf");
document.close();

Both libraries offer similar functionality for basic PDF operations, but PDFBox generally requires fewer lines of code for simple tasks. However, OpenPDF may be more intuitive for developers familiar with iText.

OpenPDF is a fork of iText, focusing on maintaining a free and open-source PDF library. It's lighter and easier to use for basic PDF operations. PDFBox, being an Apache project, offers a more comprehensive set of features and better long-term support, but may be overkill for simple use cases.

Choose OpenPDF for quick, straightforward PDF tasks, and PDFBox for more complex PDF manipulation and processing needs.

Pros of JODConverter

• Supports a wide range of document formats, including ODT, DOC, DOCX, PDF, and more
• Provides a high-level API for easy integration into Java applications
• Utilizes LibreOffice or OpenOffice for document conversion, ensuring high-quality output

Cons of JODConverter

• Requires LibreOffice or OpenOffice to be installed on the system
• May have slower performance compared to native PDF libraries for simple PDF operations
• Limited to document conversion tasks, lacking specific PDF manipulation features

Code Comparison

JODConverter (converting a document to PDF):

JodConverter.convert(inputFile).to(outputFile).execute();

OpenPDF (creating a simple PDF):

Document document = new Document();
PdfWriter.getInstance(document, new FileOutputStream("output.pdf"));
document.open();
document.add(new Paragraph("Hello, World!"));
document.close();

JODConverter focuses on document conversion across various formats, while OpenPDF specializes in PDF creation and manipulation. JODConverter offers broader format support but requires external dependencies, whereas OpenPDF provides more direct control over PDF content but is limited to PDF-specific operations.

Pros of SLF4J

• Widely adopted logging facade with extensive ecosystem support
• Allows for easy switching between different logging implementations
• Provides a simple and intuitive API for logging

Cons of SLF4J

• Not a full logging implementation, requires additional dependencies
• Limited built-in formatting options compared to OpenPDF's PDF capabilities

Code Comparison

SLF4J:

import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;

Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(MyClass.class);
logger.info("This is a log message");

OpenPDF:

import com.lowagie.text.Document;
import com.lowagie.text.Paragraph;
import com.lowagie.text.pdf.PdfWriter;

Document document = new Document();
PdfWriter.getInstance(document, new FileOutputStream("output.pdf"));
document.open();
document.add(new Paragraph("This is a PDF document"));
document.close();

Summary

SLF4J is a logging facade for Java applications, while OpenPDF is a library for creating and manipulating PDF documents. They serve different purposes and are not directly comparable. SLF4J excels in providing a unified logging interface, while OpenPDF offers robust PDF generation capabilities. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project.