On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:59:07PM +0300, Andrejus Chaliapinas wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying to understand why in Patrick's code, when he deals with Table
> auto layout feature, after TableContentLayoutManager over current
> TableLayoutManager is prepared and processed with required columns
> shrinking/extra space distribution - there is another
> TableContentLayoutManager creation (yes, this was already commeted by
> Jeremias as no go approach)? Is it because something in Area Tree (some part
> of its graph) needs to be reevaluated once more (due to changed column
> width/columnMins/anything else)?
> 
> If I comment second construction - then auto table layout testcase (yes
> Manuel, that's why I was focused on them) fails due to incorrect IPDA value
> for the first block presence in resulted area tree xml file.

I do not really know why Patrick created a second TableContentLM. His
procedure constructs the Knuth elements twice. I suppose that he
feared that this would have side effects, and that he tried to avoid
those by doing the first evaluation in another TableContentLM.

> Any help would be appreciated. I think it would be great if we could have
> UML sequence diagram for those LM invocations/dependencies during some
> general table processing.

No UML diagrams for FOP available. Would be nice though.

Regards, Simon

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu

Reply via email to