https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
--- Comment #7 from Andreas L. Delmelle <adelme...@apache.org> 2009-06-26 04:37:10 PST --- Just noting this for general interest (has little or nothing to do with this issue per se): The previous comments suddenly reminded me that I have always considered the current way that extension /properties/ are handled, as lacking in robustness. We practically force potential implementors of extension properties to modify FOP's codebase. For extension elements or attributes, the pattern is much more open and generic. They can be implemented without necessarily having to modify FOP and recompile. The same should become the case for extension properties, eventually. We probably will want to take a look at offering something like an 'ExtensionPropertyMapping' (currently non-existent), so that implementors can re-use existing PropertyMakers, define their own initial values/enums/keywords, mark properties as inherited, and so on... There are already a few 'native' extension properties, for which we define symbolic literals in fo.Constants and which are also registered in fo.FOPropertyMapping. I have never really been too happy with that practice. Contributors are invited to follow that pattern, which will only lead to more clutter. Tackling that issue, however, is not for the faint of heart. It would likely also imply revisiting the way properties are attached to the FONodes and how they are exposed to the outside (layoutengine & renderers), so would lead to changes in a Lot of classes (capital 'L', if you catch the drift...) -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
