Hi, In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Re: [poppler] poppler 0.5.4 coming up" on Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:32:58 -0400, "Kristian_Høgsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * PopplerAction family is not GLib-ish > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6912 > > > > Now, I think this idea isn't good because GdkEvent uses > > same implementation. So I'll close this bug. Any opinion? > > Closing is fine with me - I don't think the current union approach is > a problem, and a GObject for this seems a bit heavy. Besides the > patch you've proposed breaks API so it's not for 0.5 anyway. I closed. I agreed with your opinion that a GObject is heavy. # In language bindings, GObject is easy to wrap. This was the # first motive for filing this request. > > * make PopplerFontInfo GObject > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6921 > > > > I'm the maintainer Ruby/Poppler. It's very easy to > > implement Ruby bindings if an object supports G_TYPE. I > > think it's a good idea that PopplerFontInfo supports > > GObject not GBoxed. Because PopplerFontInfo has a > > FontInfoScanner and FontInfoScanner doesn't have copy > > constructor. That is PopplerFontInfo's copy function can't > > copy current scan information. So, I think GObject is a > > good choice rather than GBoxed. > > This is probably fine, but again, this breaks API, so I'd like to do > this in 0.6. I guess you could keep poppler_font_info_free() and just > make it call g_object_unref() and not break API in that case. > However, if we're going to break API in 0.6, we might as well punt > this change for 0.6 and do it without the backwards compatible > wrapper. I see. I'll wait 0.6. > > * It's better PopplerPage manages PopplerDocument's reference count > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7005 > > Makes sense, I've merged this one for 0.5.4. Thanks. Regards, -- kou _______________________________________________ poppler mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
