On 18.04.2008 12:48:53 Vincent Hennebert wrote: > Hi, > > A few comments: > > - some time ago I created a BreakUtil class in the o.a.f.util package. > I think this class and KeepUtil should be put in the same place. > Perhaps we could even merge them into a unique KeepsAndBreaksUtil > class. I don’t really know what the best place would be. I put it in > o.a.f.util because it already contains all sorts of utility classes, > but o.a.f.layoutmgr would also make sense. WDYT?
Whatever. > - it would be better to create the testcases such that the rendering > will become wrong if the feature is broken. For example, put the block > at the bottom of the page, such that it gets deferred to the next page > if keep is working, and split over 2 pages if keep is broken. Exactly > like you did in block_keep-together_integers_1.xml. > There are 2 reasons for this: > - just because the element list looks ok doesn’t ensure that the > rendering will be fine. Actually a recent post on fop-users [1] > shows that. We've had the other case, too: Rendering looked fine but the element list was wrong and lead to bad break decisions. I'm not sure if your example is a good one. > - if the generation of Knuth elements is changed somehow, all the > testcases must be adapted accordingly. I had to do that several > times when working on tables in the past months, and this is really > painful. Tests on Knuth elements should be reserved for special > situations IMO. I'm doing unit testing here, or at least as "unit" testing as possible. What you're talking about is component testing and larger. I want to make sure that the element list is correct and I trust that the breaking algorithm does the right thing because it is already tested elsewhere. I completely disagree that element list test should be reserved for special situations. Or else this is exactly such a special situation for me. > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-fop-users/200804.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > Thanks, > Vincent > > > > Author: jeremias > > Date: Tue Apr 15 12:18:46 2008 > > New Revision: 648381 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=648381&view=rev > > Log: > > First part of the implementation of stage 1 for advanced keeps (see Wiki): > > Integer values are treated differently from "always" values in > > keep-together.within-column for all block-level FOs. > > <split/> > > -- > Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies > http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com > Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting Jeremias Maerki
