[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-4985?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17221658#comment-17221658
]
Maruan Sahyoun commented on PDFBOX-4985:
----------------------------------------
[~tilman] I've looked at some of the open - slightly related tickets - where
e.g. there is no AcroForm entry at all but widget annotations. And also
considered your input about being able to maybe make different types of
requests. And maybe some of the fixes we apply are not wanted from some users.
So what about instead of having {{getAcroForm(boolean applyFixes)}} we do a
{{getAcroForm(FixupAction action)}} where we provide two actions such as
{{NoOpAction}} and {{FixAllAction}} but allow a user of the lib to do the call
with their own action. Would also decouple the code a bit. Wouldn't be a lot of
work as the code doing the stuff is already there. WDYT?
Added note: we could even use a decorator type style for the fix ups chaining
these but I don't think that's worth it but that would be doable of course.
> Render orphan annotation widgets
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: PDFBOX-4985
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-4985
> Project: PDFBox
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: AcroForm
> Affects Versions: 2.0.21
> Reporter: Tilman Hausherr
> Assignee: Maruan Sahyoun
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: Appearance, Rendering
> Fix For: 2.0.22, 3.0.0 PDFBox
>
> Attachments: POPPLER-806-acrobat.pdf, POPPLER-806-new.pdf,
> POPPLER-806-p2.jpg, POPPLER-806-page2.jpg, POPPLER-806.pdf
>
>
> The attached file has orphan widget annotations on page 2. These are rendered
> with Adobe, PDF.js (poorly), Chrome, and ghostscript, but not with PDFBox.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
