That’s certainly possible, I think part of the issue is that (speaking for myself) I’d rather see number and name trees handled more abstractly, the PD model should hide the details rather than exposing them all. Ideally we would end up with much less code.
-- John On 4 Jul 2014, at 12:40, dnt <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm wondering if anyone had a closer look at it to think about an integration > into 2.0. It is meanwhile a bit older, but not necessarily outdated. If you > think the changes made sense I can create a patch that can be applied to 2.0. > The same holds true for my other proposals that I submitted on the same day. > > Dominic > > Am Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2014, 01:27:25 schrieb John Hewson: >> [ >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1384?page=com.atlassian.jira.p >> lugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] >> >> John Hewson closed PDFBOX-1384. >> ------------------------------- >> >> Resolution: Won't Fix >> >> Closing due to the age of this patch. >> >>> Proposals for a new PDNameTreeNode and PDNumberTreeNode >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Key: PDFBOX-1384 >>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1384 >>> >>> Project: PDFBox >>> >>> Issue Type: Improvement >>> >>> Reporter: Dominic Tubach >>> Priority: Minor >>> >>> Fix For: 2.0.0 >>> >>> Attachments: DTPDNameTreeNode.java, DTPDNameTreeNodeTest.java, >>> DTPDNumberTreeNode.java, DTPDNumberTreeNodeTest.java> >>> Attached are proposals for a new PDNameTreeNode and a new >>> PDNumberTreeNode. (As both are very similar, I put them in one instead of >>> two issues.) Main differences: >>> - type safety through generics. >>> - it's always clear which types of objects the array holds. >>> - flexible object conversion through COSBaseConverter. >>> - remove method. >>> - size and isEmpty method. >>> - correct updating of limits (even in parent nodes) when setting kids, >>> names or removing values. (Does not set limits in root node as defined by >>> the PDF spec.) - removes empty child nodes. >>> Drawbacks: >>> - replacing the existing classes would require changes in existing code. >>> - requires (as of now) Java 1.6 (It might be enough to remove the >>> @Override annotations for Java 1.5 compatibility.) The required >>> COSBaseConverter can be found in issue #PDFBOX-1383 >>> (To avoid conflicts with the existing classes i prefixed everything with >>> my initials.) >> -- >> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA >> (v6.2#6252)
