GITNE edited a comment on issue #49: Add support for EXIF 2.32 URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/pull/49#issuecomment-510045676 > [ERROR] TiffTagIntegrityTest.testTagIntegrity:62->verifyFields:115 Missing tag 34867 Thank you for catching this. :+1: I have rebased the faulty commit. I have one commit yet to come. It is just basically a reorder of `ALL_*_TAGS` lists by tag id. Additionally, IMHO all non-standard tags should either be put into separate `*TagConstants` classes or an `Extension` nested class per IFD. So, for example `GpsTagConstants` should/could actually be a nested class of `ExifTagConstants` since it is an extension of Exif but in a separate IFD. Primitve non-standard tags which live in the Exif IFD should then go into the generic `Extension` nested class of `ExifTagConstants`. `ExifTagConstants` would then be a nested class of `TiffTagConstants`. Alternatively, instead of using nested classes inheritance could be employed to model the relationships between tag sets. So, why might this be useful? The current code model produces ambiguous tag names, like `EXIF_TAG_WHITE_BALANCE_1`, `EXIF_TAG_WHITE_BALANCE_2`, … etc. Currently, `EXIF_TAG_WHITE_BALANCE_1` is the name of the Exif standard tag and `EXIF_TAG_WHITE_BALANCE_2` is a vendor specific non-standard extension to white balance metadata. Library consumers have basically no way of figuring out which one is which, unless they look into the source code or reverse engineer the behavior by reading the tag id. So, I would like to change this too. However, this might be something for a separate PR, right?
---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] With regards, Apache Git Services
