Andreas L. Delmelle commented on FOP-2469:

Thanks for the explanation. The example you give happens to be the one method 
that I do not see an issue with, as it could be applicable outside of the 
auto-table-layout context as well... ;)

Just an idea, but mentioning the word "context" there makes me wonder whether 
some of the information (e.g. the boolean checked via isAutoLayout()) can be 
passed *down* by the ancestor TableLM through the LayoutContext. Not sure how 
other devs feel about this, but that way, there would be no need to "go up the 
LM hierarchy" to make that determination. It would already be set by the 
relevant ancestor LM and be immediately available via a quick check 
"context.isAutoLayout()", which would have a guaranteed O(1) performance, no 
matter how deeply nested a structure we are talking about...?

Anyways, still need to dive in a bit deeper to see whether that could work. In 
the meantime, I am definitely looking forward to your additional documentation.

> [PATCH] auto table layout
> -------------------------
>                 Key: FOP-2469
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2469
>             Project: Fop
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: layout/unqualified
>    Affects Versions: trunk
>         Environment: Windows 7, JDK 7
>            Reporter: Gregor Berg
>             Fix For: trunk
>         Attachments: 2015-05-13-auto-table-layout.patch, 
> FOP2469-auto-table-layout.xml
> Hi,
> this is a patch which enables table-layout=auto. It is quite robust, it can 
> not only handle linebreaks and pagebreaks, but it also copes with auto tables 
> in fixed tables in auto tables.
> Essentially, it is the patch of issue FOP-2450 adapted to the trunk version 
> of FOP.
> Best regards,
> Gregor

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to