> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas L. Delmelle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> When debugging the output using the AreaTree XML, the pages are in the
> proper sequence in there (only, outside of their page-sequences?*), so
Correction: they are all inside one and the same page-sequence -the final
one, preceded by a set of empty page-seqs. In that one last page-sequence,
all viewports of the pages are rendered in the correct order. (for those
interested: I'll post a sample fileset shortly -- FO / PDF 1.0 / PDF 0.20.5
/ AT 1.0 / AT 0.20.5 ... still have to get rid of some info which can be
considered confidential )
Hmm. So it's the _sequences_ that are rendered out of order, and the
PDFRenderer's output doesn't correspond to that of the AreaTree, or does it?
It seems that there is not so much wrong with the out-of-order rendering
mechanism (except maybe for page-sequences, but we'd have to correct another
error first to make sure of that).
I'd think it's caused by the way Layout/Area processes the unresolved links.
Trying to explain both PDF and AreaTree output, this seems to be indicating
that an unresolved link creates a target page-viewport *in the same*
page-sequence. When the actual target page-sequence gets rendered, the
contents of this viewport do seem to be correctly linked, but they remain in
the former page-sequence(*), so the occupied memory doesn't get released.
The origin of the OOM Error --which happens already with docs of +/- 18
pages (using tables, of course :) )
As I noticed, maintenance doesn't produce page-sequences in the AreaTree
output, just pages, so this would definitely make resolving the links more
straightforward (--as there is no such thing as an 'inter-page-sequence
In 0.20.5, unresolved links seem to be ultimately handled at Page level.
This approach is copied into HEAD, but it should be handled at PageSequence
level over there, I think --either that or the sequences shouldn't end up in
(*) it's beginning to look like nothing more than a nasty mix-up of source
and target object somewhere... could it be as simple as that? It just seems
like the target page-sequence is being passed the link instead of the actual
target of the link, while the source page-sequence gets to keep all the
contents and passes these to the target page-sequence when the latter asks