Am Freitag, 4. Juli 2014, 13:33:58 schrieb John Hewson: > 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.
I agree that it should normally not be required to use number and name trees directly. Though IMHO it's still not wrong to know which type of objects a container contains. Why should this information not be made available to someone who wants (for whatever reason) to access such a tree directly? Anyhow it's nice to get response to at least one proposal after all... Dominic > -- 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 outdated.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)
