--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like it. How does this sound:
>
> - Unnest Property.Maker to PropertyMaker and put it
> in fo.properties.
> - Roll the datatypes classes into their property
> class and move the
>property class to fo.properties (but without
> unnesting their Maker
>
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26434
[PATCH] unnesting Property.Maker and rollling datatypes into thier properties.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26434
[PATCH] unnesting Property.Maker and rollling datatypes into thier properties.
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-02 08:24 ---
Comments from fop-dev:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107476581612018&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgr
[Glen Mazza]
Another option, Finn, is to move all the Property
subclasses to fo.properties (even if they're alongside
the makers, nested or unnested), after thinking about
it, I think that will be a little bit clearer than
having them in the datatype package. Comments?
I like it. How does this s
[Simon Pepping]
I have the following considerations:
...
3. In code where the datatype aspect is used, the code may become less
logical. This happens in the parsers and in the RTF renderer. An
example from render/rtf/TextAttributesConverter.java:
// Cell background color
Colo
Simon Pepping wrote:
I have the following considerations:
1. The old situation has pure datatypes, which in theory may be reused
in other situations. In practice, these datatypes are very much
bound to properties, so that reuse is not realistic, and does not
happen in FOP code. Combining
--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Simon Pepping
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> > All in all I think that this change simplifies the
> code, and would be
> > a good change.
> >
> > Allow me to make some notes:
> >
> > 1. Would it not
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Pepping [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> All in all I think that this change simplifies the code, and would be
> a good change.
>
> Allow me to make some notes:
>
> 1. Would it not be a good idea to move Property.java from fo to
>properties?
>
A questio
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 11:32:22AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This patch is intended as inspiration and as an example of the discussion found
> here:
>
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107511296910230&w=2
>
> The patch includes the following:
>
> - unnests the Property.M
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26434
[PATCH] unnesting Property.Maker and rollling datatypes into thier properties.
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-01-26 11:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=10086)
A unified patch against HEAD.
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26434
[PATCH] unnesting Property.Maker and rollling datatypes into thier properties.
Summary: [PATCH] unnesting Property.Maker and rollling datatypes
into thier properties.
Product: Fop
Version: 1.0dev
Platform:
11 matches
Mail list logo