Thanks for the pointers. I agree that implementing retrieve-table-marker is not only a more generic solution but also what the spec requires. However, I'm short on time and this seems easier so I'll give it a try first.


Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Carlos,

Carlos Villegas wrote:

I searched the mailing lists and it seems that although some people had
worked at several times at trying to implement retrieve-table-marker,
it's not yet done. Is somebody working on this? What's the status?

It’s not being worked on at the moment. This is still a missing feature.

In many use cases omitting the first table header and the last table
footer will do the trick.

How easy is this to implement?
What will be the steps to add such an extension to FOP?
I just started looking at the code so I'm exploring whether this is
viable solution.

That might work. You would need to change the
method. There is a “if (getTableLM().getTable().omitHeaderAtBreak())”
test that you could augment with a “&& !(omitFirstHeader)” clause.
Likewise for the footer.

The easiest is to directly modify that class and re-build FOP. A bit
less easy would be to add a variable in the configuration file, so that
you can enable it only for certain FO files. Even less easy would be to
add an extension property to fo:table so that you can enable it only for
some tables of an FO document. Please ask if you need more details.

All that said, such a change would be very hacky and, unless there is
overwhelming demand from the user community, I would oppose to integrate
it in the code base. This is a patch that you would have to maintain on
your side. Better would be of course to actually implement
retrieve-table-marker. Although this would be more involving than
implementing this little trick...


Reply via email to