DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42144>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED ANDĀ·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42144


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2007-05-30 12:49 -------
Adrian, I've looked into this patch today. I've found several issues I'd like
adressed:
- getPSGenerator() should probably be renamed to createPSGenerator(). A "get" is
a little misleading. After all, the method creates a new PSGenerator instance.
- In several places you create an anonymous inner class just to fill some values
in a PSArray, for example. Please note that while the source code might look
elegant, each of these constructs is creating an additional .class file with at
least 1KB in size while a normal variable access would only generate a few byte
code instructions.
- super.init() is missing in PSPageDeviceDictionary. This resulted in a
NullPointerException in my tests since those makers weren't initialized.
- The PostScript output caused errors in GhostScript/GhostView when I used the
setpagedevice functionality. Haven't investigated further. I'll attach the file
I tested with. Part of the content is copied from the example in the
documentation you wrote.
- I'd like the setpagedevice code to be an optional feature not normally
generated, since setpagedevice is usually device-specific. I usually
post-process PostScript to add media management so I wouldn't want to have to
remove it. It would be great if it were only activated if any ps-setpage-device
extension is used.
- You wrote that the patch contains a performance improvement concerning the
page setup. Is that a performance improvement in terms of processing speed
inside a PostScript engine? I'm asking because I don't see how the Renderer code
would be any/considerably faster like you propose. In the existing code there
are no time-consuming operations involved around the page setup that I can see
(although I didn't do any measurements). At any rate, I found out that the name
of the simple page master is not correctly generated for each page if you have
different page masters in your page-sequence-master. See my test file.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Reply via email to