Can do, but I'll get the percentage stuff more stable first.
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:48 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> A log message is not good enough. That needs to throw an exception.
> It's a bug if IPD and BPD are not set IMO. Would you write test cases
> for all the possible combinations after adding the exception and
> before fixing the problems? I can help you there, if you like.
>
> On 25.08.2005 08:40:22 Manuel Mall wrote:
> > The safety check in addBackground is already there. This is how I
> > stumbled across it as it is triggered by one of the layout engine
> > tests.
> >
> > I'll look into it as part of the whole percentage stuff I'm
> > currently doing.
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:35 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > > You are right. It seems like some calls to
> > > TraitSetter.addBackground() are issued before IPD and BPD of the
> > > area are set (list-block and list-item, for example). Yes, the
> > > call will need to be deferred until the BPD and IPD have been set
> > > on the area. A safety check in addBackground() will be a very
> > > good idea, too. You or me? :-)
> > >
> > > On 25.08.2005 05:14:04 Manuel Mall wrote:
> > > > When setting a relative background position the positioning is
> > > > relative to the size of the area the background is applied to.
> > > > Currently the position calculation is done when the area is
> > > > created, i.e. when the background trait is set. However, at
> > > > that point in time fop may not know the bpd and ipd of the area
> > > > in question. Therefore the calculated positioning will be
> > > > wrong. Am I correct in saying that the logic needs to be
> > > > changed to do that calculation (or even set the background
> > > > trait) when the layout is completed for that area and not when
> > > > the area is created in the layout process?
> > >
> > > Jeremias Maerki
> >
> > Manuel
>
> Jeremias Maerki
Manuel

Reply via email to