Chris Bowditch wrote:
> thanks for taking the time to explain, I had a quick look at the code and
> have a basic understanding of what you've done. That change gets you one
> step closer to decoupling layout from the FO Tree. I'm interested in what
> the next step in the effort to decouple layout
From: "Victor Mote" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So the answer to your second question is that the Visitor doesn't have
anything to do with the layout managers, except as a means to an end.
The only downside that I can see is that the abstract FOTreeVisitor needs
to
be updated if the super/sub class rel
Chris Bowditch wrote:
> I hope you dont me asking, but I am curious about the work you are doing.
> Why did you name this object Visitor? What does it mean in terms
> of a Layout
> Manager? Please understand I'm not trying to critise, I'm just trying to
> understand.
It is a good question, and I
From: "Victor Mote" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For those who are interested in / concerned about the line of development I
am taking, I submit this report, to try to make your task easier. I just
committed a change that completely refactors all of the addLayoutManager
methods that were in the FObj subcla
