Pros of openhtmltopdf

• Supports HTML and CSS rendering, allowing for more flexible and modern document creation
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements
• Offers better support for complex layouts and responsive design

Cons of openhtmltopdf

• May have a steeper learning curve for users familiar with traditional PDF libraries
• Potentially larger file size and resource usage due to HTML rendering engine
• Some advanced PDF features might require additional configuration or plugins

Code Comparison

openhtmltopdf:

PdfRendererBuilder builder = new PdfRendererBuilder();
builder.withUri("https://example.com");
builder.toStream(outputStream);
builder.run();

openpdf:

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

The code comparison shows that openhtmltopdf uses a builder pattern to configure and render HTML content, while openpdf uses a more traditional approach of creating a document and adding elements directly. openhtmltopdf's method allows for rendering existing HTML pages, while openpdf requires manual content creation within the code.

Both libraries have their strengths, with openhtmltopdf offering more flexibility for web-based content and openpdf providing a simpler approach for basic PDF generation. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and the type of content you need to generate.

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

• Commercial licensing required for many use cases
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Larger library size, which may impact application size

Code Comparison

openpdf example:

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

itext-java example:

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

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for creating PDFs, but itext-java provides more advanced features and flexibility in document creation and manipulation. openpdf is generally simpler to use for basic tasks, while itext-java offers more power and control at the cost of complexity. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, budget constraints, and the level of PDF manipulation needed.

Pros of JasperReports

• More comprehensive reporting solution with advanced features like charting, subreports, and crosstabs
• Supports multiple output formats including PDF, HTML, XLS, CSV, and XML
• Offers a visual report designer (iReport) for easier report creation

Cons of JasperReports

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Larger library size and potential performance overhead for simpler PDF generation tasks
• Commercial licensing for some advanced features and support

Code Comparison

JasperReports:

JasperReport jasperReport = JasperCompileManager.compileReport(reportSource);
JasperPrint jasperPrint = JasperFillManager.fillReport(jasperReport, parameters, dataSource);
JasperExportManager.exportReportToPdfFile(jasperPrint, outputPath);

OpenPDF:

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

The code comparison shows that JasperReports requires more setup and configuration for report generation, while OpenPDF offers a simpler approach for basic PDF creation. JasperReports is better suited for complex reporting needs, whereas OpenPDF is more lightweight and straightforward for simple PDF generation tasks.

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 for various use cases

Cons of PDFBox

• Larger library size, which may impact application size and load times
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API and feature set
• May be overkill for simple PDF-related tasks

Code Comparison

PDFBox example (creating a simple PDF):

PDDocument document = new PDDocument();
PDPage page = new PDPage();
document.addPage(page);
PDPageContentStream contentStream = new PDPageContentStream(document, page);
contentStream.beginText();
contentStream.setFont(PDType1Font.HELVETICA, 12);
contentStream.newLineAtOffset(100, 700);
contentStream.showText("Hello, World!");
contentStream.endText();
contentStream.close();
document.save("example.pdf");
document.close();

OpenPDF example (creating a simple PDF):

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

OpenPDF offers a simpler API for basic PDF creation, while PDFBox provides more granular control over PDF elements and structure.

Pros of jodconverter

• Supports a wide range of document formats, including Microsoft Office and OpenOffice
• Provides a flexible API for document conversion and manipulation
• Integrates well with LibreOffice for high-quality conversions

Cons of jodconverter

• Requires LibreOffice or OpenOffice to be installed on the system
• May have higher resource usage due to its dependency on external office suites
• Can be more complex to set up and configure compared to simpler PDF libraries

Code Comparison

jodconverter:

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

openpdf:

PdfReader reader = new PdfReader(inputFile);
PdfWriter writer = new PdfWriter(outputFile);
new PdfDocument(reader, writer).close();

jodconverter offers a more straightforward API for document conversion, while openpdf provides lower-level PDF manipulation capabilities. jodconverter is better suited for converting between various document formats, whereas openpdf excels in PDF-specific operations and generation.

Pros of slf4j

• Widely adopted logging facade with extensive ecosystem support
• Allows switching between different logging implementations without code changes
• Simple API with minimal overhead

Cons of slf4j

• Not a full PDF library; focused solely on logging
• Requires additional dependencies for actual logging implementation
• Less feature-rich 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("Hello, PDF!"));
document.close();

Summary

slf4j is a logging facade that provides flexibility in choosing logging implementations, while openpdf is a library for creating and manipulating PDF documents. They serve different purposes and are not direct competitors. slf4j excels in providing a unified logging interface, while openpdf offers specific PDF-related functionality.