On 28.07.2011 13:59:52 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> On 27/07/11 13:39, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > On 27.07.2011 12:09:58 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> >> There is basic housekeeping that ought to be done IMO:
> >>
> >> On 26/07/11 19:28, jeremias wrote:
> >>> Author: jeremias
> >>> Date: Tue Jul 26 18:28:07 2011
> >>> New Revision: 1151195
> >>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1151195&view=rev
> >>> Log:
> >>> Fixed a bug in TTF subsetting where a composite glyph could get remapped
> >>> more than once resulting in garbled character.
> >>>
> >>> Modified:
> >>>
> >>> xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fonts/truetype/TTFSubSetFile.java
> >>> xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/status.xml
> >>>
> >> <snip/>
> >>> /**
> >>> + * We need to remember which composites were already remapped
> >>> because the value to be
> >>> + * remapped is being read from the TTF file and being replaced right
> >>> there. Doing this
> >>> + * twice would create a bad map the second time.
> >>> + */
> >>> + private Set<Long> remappedComposites = null;
> >>
> >> This should be put at the beginning of the file, along with all field
> >> declarations. (Also, theres no need to initialize it to null as its
> >> already done by default.)
> >
> > So we're back to nitpicking.
>
> I actually find it very worrying that you consider this to be
> nitpicking, when any decent book about software programming will
> emphasize the importance of producing code that is as clear and readable
> as possible. I think its urgent to improve the readability of our code
> base if we want to attract more contributors. Could we commit to that?
You know, I've tried VERY hard to do the change in a way so I hope you
would agree with it. It is clear to me by now that it is extremely hard
for anyone to please your expectations. Try to do it one way, you want
it another.
> Its great that you java 1.5-ified parts of the code in that commit (has
> it been tested though?), and it would be good if the other changes were
> bringing the same improved clarity.
I've done extensive test with various fonts.
>
> > I've done that intentionally to indicate
> > that the variable is only just used by the following method.
>
> By putting it at a non-expected place youre making it difficult to find
> the variable and understand in a quick glance what the class is made of.
> This hampers the readability and maintainability of the code. Given that
> its what we spend most of our time on, I find this worrying.
See? And I did it that way exactly because I wanted to make this more
readable and understandable. It's just hopeless to even try around you.
> Your needing to put the variable near to the methods that use it is
> a clear sign that this class is too big and needs to be split into
> smaller entities.
That's becoming a standard statement of yours. Not that this approach always
accomplishes the desired result.
>
> > And the
> > null is only there to emphasize that the variable is lazily assigned
> > because the thing is often not even needed.
>
> This is an interesting convention, although I believe it is cancelled out
> by the fact that in a vast majority of cases, the initialization is
> there just out of ignorance of Javas default initialization. But that
> doesnt matter too much.
>
>
> <snip/>
> >>> + if (remappedComposites.contains(offset)) {
> >>> + return;
> >>
> >> This return introduces another exit point that is hidden at the
> >> beginning of the method. This is something that one wouldnt expect and
> >> makes the method hard to understand and maintain. This method should
> >> most probably be split into smaller methods.
> >
> > I'll swallow my comment to this and just do the split:
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1151447&view=rev
>
> When I read this and the sarcastic message associated to the commit, Im
> concerned about the unwelcoming atmosphere that is being created on this
> mailing list. Can we try and remain civil to each other?
It was meant to be sarcastic and an expression of my anger. We two got
along in the last few months because we apparently went out of each
other's way. But that only hides the underlying problem. I cannot turn
myself magically into the person that can always forsee how you want
something done. And I'm getting really tired of having the same
arguments over and over. The only way I can react to this is to retreat
again. Which is probably what I'll be doing after finishing some of the
things I promised to a number of people.
>
> >> But more importantly, there is no unit test that comes with this commit.
> >> So there is no reason to believe that the problem is fixed and, most of
> >> all, will not happen again in the future. Can you please add a unit test
> >> for this?
> >
> > No, I cannot. For licensing reasons. I can't upload the font that's
> > causing this into the Apache SVN repository. I'd have to artificially
> > construct a font that emulates this and I certainly won't try to do that.
>
> We have the DejaVuLGCSerif font in our tests/resources/fonts directory.
> Surely it must be possible to reproduce the issue with that font. Did
> you have a look at it?
I'm afraid, both DejaVuLGCSerif and glb12 don't have that particular
constellation.
>
> Thanks,
> Vincent
Jeremias Maerki
