[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-4471?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16776332#comment-16776332
]
Maruan Sahyoun commented on PDFBOX-4471:
----------------------------------------
I have to admit that I didn't look into the SO entry but was simply answering
the question "... why we are reusing the existing appearance stream ...".
Obviously this will not work in that case.
Now in order to fix it I don't think that it makes a lot of sense to fiddle
around in the current code but take a similar approach that we have used for
non widget annotations - have individual handlers for that.
[~tilman] WDYT?
> Different fields look alike if they have the same /AP/N before value change
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PDFBOX-4471
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-4471
> Project: PDFBox
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: AcroForm
> Affects Versions: 2.0.13
> Reporter: Tilman Hausherr
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: csOnePage.pdf
>
>
> See attached SO answer - in the attached file, different fields point to the
> same /AP/N object. I think this could be fixed by changing
> {{AppearanceGeneratorHelper.setAppearanceValue()}} by removing the "if"
> segment in {{if (appearance != null && appearance.isStream())}} and keep the
> "else" part only.
> I'm wondering why we are reusing the existing appearance stream, is there are
> use case to this? I ran the tests after making the change and there was a
> difference but it was invisible.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
