i just checked this change against the complex script branch, and it's ok (doesn't regress); so if you want to leave it in, i won't object, though, in general, i prefer the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule;
i would also note that in the complex script branch i had previously redefined BidiOverride to inherit from Inline in order to reuse a portion of its implementation; i would not want to redefine it again merely to follow the same path you have chosen for BasicLink; also, just to note further, your change seems to have introduced a new findbugs warning; perhaps you can fix: CodeWarning UPMPrivate method org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.inline.InlineLayoutManager.getInlineFO() is never called Bug type UPM_UNCALLED_PRIVATE_METHOD (click for details)<file:///Users/glenn/Work/fop/build/report_findbugs.html#UPM_UNCALLED_PRIVATE_METHOD> In class org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.inline.InlineLayoutManager In method org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.inline.InlineLayoutManager.getInlineFO() At InlineLayoutManager.java:[line 111] On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: > let's step back a minute; what was the problem you were trying to solve? > what was broken? how did your change fix it? > > if you made this change just because you think instanceof Inline should > return false on a BasicLink, then this change would seem gratuitous > > it is wholly reasonable that BasicLink may share the implementation of > Inline as previously held; your change required you to copy/paste existing > code from Inline into BasicLink and to alter InlineLayoutManager for no > purpose other than accommodating your change > > IMO you should revert the change > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Peter Hancock <peter.hanc...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> By ancestor I refer to the relationship with respect to the fo: >> element hierarchy: Since the definition of fo:basic-link does not >> depend upon fo:inline, we cannot conclude that fo:basic-link is an >> fo:inline. >> >> The parameter entity "%inline;" refers to inline-level fo elements, >> fo:inline and fo:basic-link being members, and this is now reflected >> on the FOP FO object hierarchy, where Inline and BasicLink extend >> InlineLevel >> >> Have I understood the recommendation correctly, or have I missed anything? >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: >> > i'm not sure what you mean by 'ancestor', since containment relation is >> not >> > at issue here; >> > your argument is counter to the definition of the parameter entity >> %inline; >> > defined in XSL 1.1 Section 6.2 >> > >> > The parameter entity, "%inline;" in the content models below, contains >> the >> > following formatting objects: >> > >> > bidi-override >> > character >> > external-graphic >> > instream-foreign-object >> > inline >> > inline-container >> > leader >> > page-number >> > page-number-citation >> > page-number-citation-last >> > scaling-value-citation >> > basic-link >> > multi-toggle >> > index-page-citation-list >> > >> > i believe you should first restore the previous state of affairs, and >> then, >> > if you wish to continue making the case that it is not inline, take it >> up >> > with the group and get consensus before making what appears to be a >> possibly >> > unjustified architectural change >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Peter Hancock <peter.hanc...@gmail.com >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> While fo:basic-link and fo:inline are both inline level elements, one >> >> is not the ancestor of the other and so FOP's model of the FO elements >> >> should reflect this, I believe. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: >> >> > if I recall, I need this inheritance (from Inline) to work in the >> >> > complex >> >> > script branch as well >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Simon Pepping < >> spepp...@leverkruid.eu> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:18:54AM -0000, phancock@apache.orgwrote: >> >> >> > Author: phancock >> >> >> > Date: Thu Sep 29 10:18:53 2011 >> >> >> > New Revision: 1177251 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1177251&view=rev >> >> >> > Log: >> >> >> > Fix FO tree hierarchy: BasicLink shouldn't inherit from Inline >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? A basic-link is an inline object which generates inline areas. >> >> >> >> >> >> Simon >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >