Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
>> Writing a custom iterator for the children
>> list would solve this...
>
> I agree with you, but this one seems to be simple and would benefit by
> decoupling fo tree internal structure and its usage. Usual design
> pattern could be used - hierarcy of custom iterators:
J.Pietschmann wrote:
> appropriate cast. Unfortunately, in the maintenance branch
> the children vector is protected and directly accessed in a
> lot of places, putting the test+cast code and the handling
> of the one-child-only special case everywhere seemed to be
> too much work. Writing a cus
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote:
> I overlooked the "PCDATA as child" case...taking that into account there is
> no doubt that 1 child is an important case. But I am still not convinced
> this case needs treatment different from the "2 or more children" case as
> Oleg proposed.
I also considered what
Joerg Pietschmann wrote:
> I thought I posted this two weeks ago.
Sorry Joerg, I have missed your post.
> I made some
> measurements with the FOP examples and a few other
> FO files an get roughly the following statistics:
> 45% no child (mostly text nodes, but also fo:page-number and fo:region-
> -Original Message-
> From: Joerg Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: August 13, 2002 4:53 AM
> To: FOP Dev
> Subject: Re: just a thought
>
> Oleg Tkachenko wrote
[ Snipped Oleg's proposal ]
>
> I thought I posted this two weeks ago. I made
HI devs,
Can we directly say Driver.render(Document). It gives me the
following error. I'm sure the document is good. Any help?
[ERROR]: Logger not set
[INFO]: building formatting object tree
java.lang.NullPointerException
at
org.apache.fop.apps.StreamRenderer.startRenderer(Stream
Oleg Tkachenko wrote
> It's probably not too late to consider some trivial optimization of fo
> tree in redesign code. In a typical fo document probably about 30% of
> elements have no children or have only one child (text node usually), so
> instead of eager
> protected ArrayList children = ne
gt; > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: just a thought
> >
> > It's probably not too late to consider some trivial optimization of fo
> > tree in redesign code. In a typical fo document probably about 30% of
> > elements have no children or have only one child (tex
> -Original Message-
> From: Oleg Tkachenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: August 12, 2002 8:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: just a thought
>
> It's probably not too late to consider some trivial optimization of fo
> tree in redesign code. In a
Hello!
It's probably not too late to consider some trivial optimization of fo
tree in redesign code. In a typical fo document probably about 30% of
elements have no children or have only one child (text node usually), so
instead of eager
protected ArrayList children = new ArrayList();
in FObj.
10 matches
Mail list logo