Thank you  Vincent and Andreas for all your help. Indeed I have my homework
to do. Read.. read and reread :). I will try to digest what you both have
written and see what I can come up with.

Thanks Again,


Andreas Delmelle-2 wrote:
> On May 19, 2008, at 17:08, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi
>> bonekrusher wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Since FOP 0.94 and 0.95 Beta do not have support for Table  
>>> Continuation
>>> Labels, I would like to see if I can possible work on this for the  
>>> project.
>> To implement this feature, 4 steps basically need to be performed:
>> - implement support for fo:retrieve-table-marker in the FO tree;
>>   I believe this stage is more or less complete
> Indeed. I added this recently. The only thing currently incomplete is  
> support for retrieve-table-markers as substitutes for the header/ 
> footer. (It seems like the Recommendation offers the possibility of  
> putting the entire fo:table-header element in a fo:marker... Adrian  
> pointed this out after I committed. As Vincent points out: read /and/  
> re-read ;-))
>> <snip />
>> I can’t help you much regarding how other markers are currently  
>> handled,
>> since I haven’t looked at this part of the code yet.
> The key point here is PageSequenceLayoutManager.resolveRetrieveMarker 
> () which is called from AbstractLayoutManager.createChildLMs() (for  
> the subclass StaticContentLayoutManager).
> <snip />
>> However,
>> seems like a good  
>> starting
>> point.
> This contains the basic code for cloning the marker. Normally, this  
> should not need any changes (apart from cleaning up some unrelated  
> TODOs...)
> While it may be of educational value to browse through, it does not  
> contain anything specific wrt the actual marker-resolution. It only  
> contains the mechanism for the marker-duplication: cloning the  
> subtree, evaluating property expressions in the proper context,  
> triggering white-space-handling.
> This is all done because one fo:marker may be retrieved multiple  
> times into different contexts, so it's important to separate the  
> retrieved copy from the original.
> The main challenge in the layoutengine, as I see it is that, for  
> marker-retrieval to work (on page-level), the cells in the table-body  
> have to have 'added' their markers (see  
> AbstractLayoutManager.addMarkersToPage(), which is called from  
> addAreas()).
> In normal flow-layout, the marker-retrieval is triggered by the  
> StaticContentLayoutManager.createChildLMs(), which is activated / 
> after/ the areas for the Flow have been added to the body-region for  
> the current page-viewport.
> Just my 2 cents...
> Cheers
> Andreas

View this message in context:
Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at

Reply via email to