[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13920585#comment-13920585
]
Tilman Hausherr commented on PDFBOX-1960:
-----------------------------------------
I'm also not in favor of replacing Matrix, because I believe that there is a
reason that AffineTransform wasn't used in the first place. The few things I've
understood about it from reading the spec is that its not really the same. I
prefer not to have another "no stone unturned" change if there is an
alternative. My own strategy has always been to convert Matrix locally to an
AffineTransform.
I also don't understand the example, one has 0.6 the other has 0.3 so its not
surprising that the result is different.
> Matrix is wrong
> ---------------
>
> Key: PDFBOX-1960
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1960
> Project: PDFBox
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.8.4, 2.0.0
> Reporter: John Hewson
> Priority: Critical
>
> I've been driven insane recently by trying to get pattern fills to render
> correctly. Patterns have their own matrix which is concatenated to the CTM
> and no matter how I applied the transformation, the results were wrong.
> It turns out that org.apache.pdfbox.util.Matrix is not behaving as expected,
> here's an example from a pattern I'm working on. I performed the same
> concatenation (i.e. multiplication) using our Matrix and Java's
> AffineTransform, the results are as follows:
> Java AffineTransform:
> [[2.0, 0.0, 1.251E-12], [-0.0, 2.0, 1684.0]] *
> [[0.6, 0.0, 302.6], [0.0, 0.6, 1091.38]] =
> [[0.6,0.0,0.0][0.0,0.6,0.0][605.21,2856.34,1.0]]
> PDFBox Matrix:
> [[2.0,-0.0,0.0][0.0,2.0,0.0][1.251E-12,1684.0,1.0]] *
> [[0.3,0.0,0.0][0.0,0.300007,0.0][302.60,586.17,1.0]] =
> [[0.6,0.0,0.0][0.0,0.6,0.0][302.6,1091.38,1.0]]
> I suggest that we remove Matrix and replace it with AffineTransform.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
