Important typo in that last e-mail: > What I’m proposing is mostly a change to COSStream#close().
Should be: > What I’m proposing is mostly a change to COSDocument#close(). -- John > On 7 Jan 2015, at 14:53, John Hewson <j...@jahewson.com> wrote: > >> >> On 7 Jan 2015, at 13:56, Andreas Lehmkuehler <andr...@lehmi.de> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Am 07.01.2015 um 22:42 schrieb John Hewson: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I’d like to bring PDFBOX-2592 to the attention of the dev mailing list. >>> >>> A number of users on the mailing list have asked about how to import pages >>> from other PDFs as forms, our current solution is LayerUtility, which is >>> depends on PDFCloneUtility. >>> >>> However, the design of the COS API allows for sharing of COS objects >>> between documents (in the same thread). So there’s no need for all the >>> copying and cloning. With only a few minor changes we could get this >>> working robustly. It might also help simplify splitting and merging. >>> >>> I like this idea a lot and it’s pretty simple - any thoughts? >> We should wait until the COSStream is refactored (split compressed and >> umcompressed stream, optimize the data handling memory vs. file) and see if >> your idea will still work. > > I should clarify that I’m not proposing any changes to COSStream beyond > adding an isClosed() method. The relationship between COSDocument and > COSStream will also be unchanged, COSDocument#close() will still call > COSStream#close() as it currently does . > > What I’m proposing is mostly a change to COSDocument#close(). All of the same > close() calls will still be made to the same streams, it’s just the var = > null statements which I want to remove, so that objects from closed documents > are still usable (except for COSStream, hence the need for isClosed()). > >>> -- John >> >> BR >> Andreas Lehmkühler
