gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RE
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-26 15:58 ---
Further discussions on fop-dev:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107688130007968&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&
Finn Bock wrote:
That is not correct. Temporarily storing the area dimension in the FO
tree just long enough for the getNextBreakPoss() to return does *not* in
any way prevent reusing the FO tree or the LM tree for an other
rendering run.
It prevents overlapping/concurrent runs. Whether these a
[Finn Bock]
I don't understand how you propose to solve any of this, but I hope it
would be Ok to commit the straight forward solution I propose.
[J.Pietschmann]
Whatever works. I just want to note that given the almost one-
to-one correspondence between FOs and LMs both in classes and
instances
Finn Bock wrote:
I don't understand how you propose to solve any of this, but I hope it
would be Ok to commit the straight forward solution I propose.
Whatever works. I just want to note that given the almost one-
to-one correspondence between FOs and LMs both in classes and
instances (with the ex
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> There's a lot of subjective judgement in making such calls, which is why
> it's useful to have a number of different opinions kicking ideas around.
>
Yeah.. it probably is too subjective to settle in a few sentences
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The borderline cases may be very much in the minority (and must be,
judging by the degree of usage that FOP gets now) but they must be taken
into account in the design of the solution. If we go fo
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The borderline cases may be very much in the minority (and must be,
> judging by the degree of usage that FOP gets now) but they must be taken
> into account in the design of the solution. If we go for the
> low-hang
Finn,
Nice. The parser, of course, looks after all of the expression-ordering
questions for you, and you have only to collect the unresolved items.
I'll adopt this for alt-design.
Peter
Finn Bock wrote:
[Peter B. West]
Can you describe your expression tree in more detail?
The line above is
Finn Bock wrote:
[Peter B. West]
Finn,
When I apply your most recent patch (10366) against a cvs updated HEAD
tree and attempt to compile, I get the following:
[javac]
/usr/local/src/fop-HEAD-finn/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/properties/LinearCombinationLength.java:60:
After applying the pat
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks Andreas. Yes, I disagree, but then, so does the spec. What
information *should* do is not terribly relevant. We need to work out
and express what information *must* do to get this thing
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Thanks Andreas. Yes, I disagree, but then, so does the spec. What
> information *should* do is not terribly relevant. We need to work out
> and express what information *must* do to get this thing working.
>
Voila
[Simon Pepping]
I like the patch and the way RelativeNumericProperty holds and
evaluates an expression tree (except my different preference for
storing layout information, as discussed). This is really nice and
works well:
v = "(((0mpt +(4000mpt +20.0%)) +0mpt) +0mpt)"
[Peter B. West]
Can y
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 12:24:24PM +0100, Finn Bock wrote:
> >Question: What to do if I insert a fo:wrapper between fo:flow and
> >fo:block? That makes it the parent of fo:block, but it has no layout
> >manager corresponding to it. Override getLayoutDimension on it?
>
> I don't think so, but perha
[Peter B. West]
Finn,
When I apply your most recent patch (10366) against a cvs updated HEAD
tree and attempt to compile, I get the following:
[javac]
/usr/local/src/fop-HEAD-finn/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/properties/LinearCombinationLength.java:60:
After applying the patch (10366), the fol
If an expression reference another expression in a parent fo, the parent
fo expression must be evaluated against the LayoutContext that was in
effect for the parent fo and *not* against the child fo LayoutContext.
It must be the LayoutContex for 'a' that is used when we evaluate the
10%
Re-resending...
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:20:52 +1000
Finn,
When I apply your most recent patch (10366) against a cvs updated HEAD
tree and attempt to compile, I get the following:
[javac]
/usr
Re-resending...
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:07:06 +1000
Finn Bock wrote:
[me]
If an expression reference another expression in a parent fo, the
parent fo expression must be evaluated against the
Re-resending...
Original Message
Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26778] - [PATCH] Support for percentages
and table-units
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:05:20 +1000
Simon Pepping wrote:
I like the patch and the way RelativeNumericProperty holds and
evaluates an expression tree
Re-sending due to mailer problems.
Peter
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:48:59 +1000
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Simon Pepping [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In my view FOP
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 04:00:26PM -0800, Glen Mazza wrote:
> In general, yes, but not as 100%. We had this debate
> for months, with Victor holding fast to your view on
> the issue. We've done more spec research since then
> (I encourage you to read the parts of the spec I
> indicated in my post
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:52:41AM +0100, Finn Bock wrote:
> If an expression reference another expression in a parent fo, the parent
> fo expression must be evaluated against the LayoutContext that was in
> effect for the parent fo and *not* against the child fo LayoutContext.
>
>
>
>
>
If it is evaluated already where would the evaluated value be stored?
[J.Pietschmann]
The layout context for the child LM could be an appropriate place.
The resolved property values of the parents should be stored in the
layout context? I must be missing something here!
And then the value should
Finn Bock wrote:
If it is evaluated already where would the evaluated value be stored?
The layout context for the child LM could be an appropriate place.
And then the value should be
reverted to the expression when the base value changes due to breaks.
No problem, this is known at the place where
[me]
If an expression reference another expression in a parent fo, the
parent fo expression must be evaluated against the LayoutContext that
was in effect for the parent fo and *not* against the child fo
LayoutContext.
It must be the LayoutContex for 'a' that is used when we evaluate
[Simon Pepping]
I like the patch and the way RelativeNumericProperty holds and
evaluates an expression tree (except my different preference for
storing layout information, as discussed). This is really nice and
works well:
v = "(((0mpt +(4000mpt +20.0%)) +0mpt) +0mpt)"
I found a few things tha
Finn Bock wrote:
If an expression reference another expression in a parent fo, the parent
fo expression must be evaluated against the LayoutContext that was in
effect for the parent fo and *not* against the child fo LayoutContext.
It must be the LayoutContex for 'a' that is used when w
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:41:46PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-15 16:41 ---
> Good catch Simon, thanks for taking time to look at it. The NPE is due to a
> missing implementation of getNumeric() in RelativeNumericProperty (which
[J.Pietschmann]
The layout context has the actual IPD MinOptMax. There is no
inherent reason it should have a link to a parent context or the
property subsystem, it's only necessary to have a method to
resolve a property expression given a set of MinOptMax for
the various traits which can be used a
--- Simon Pepping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In my view FOP consists of a number of subsystems
> that are ordered
> from upstream to downstream. The FO tree is the most
> upstream system,
> the area tree (or objects that are constructed by a
> renderer) is the
> most downstream system. Informa
> is being interrogated/perceived/discussed...
Sorry, it's late here...
> You are IMO very correct by stating that 'if the Layout info can
> be reused,
> so can the AT and the renderer', however, if I interpret correctly, the
> latter two are designed to dispose of their created objects ASAP.
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Pepping [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In my view FOP consists of a number of subsystems that are ordered
> from upstream to downstream. The FO tree is the most upstream system,
> the area tree (or objects that are constructed by a renderer) is the
> most d
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:52:10PM -0800, Glen Mazza wrote:
> --- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The layout dimension that is stored in the FO tree
> > is constantly updated
> > during discovery of BreakPoss'es and is never
> > reused, not even when a
> > block is split over a break
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 09:31:52PM +0100, Finn Bock wrote:
>
> [J.Pietschmann]
>
> >The layout context has the actual IPD MinOptMax. There is no
> >inherent reason it should have a link to a parent context or the
> >property subsystem, it's only necessary to have a method to
> >resolve a property
--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The layout dimension that is stored in the FO tree
> is constantly updated
> during discovery of BreakPoss'es and is never
> reused, not even when a
> block is split over a break where new values are
> assigned.
>
I don't know enough to comment too m
> Perhaps, but I doubt it. If they was change to always get a reference to
> the parent layout context when they are created, and if they had a
> reference to the FObj, and if they was made available to the property
> subsystem, then they could properly be used for it.
[J.Pietschmann]
The lay
Finn Bock wrote:
> Perhaps, but I doubt it. If they was change to always get a reference to
> the parent layout context when they are created, and if they had a
> reference to the FObj, and if they was made available to the property
> subsystem, then they could properly be used for it.
The layout c
[Simon Pepping]
If in the re-use the layout would not change, the area tree could be
reused. OTOH, if the layout would change, e.g. because another
renderer would use a font with a different font metric, the layout
information in the FO tree cannot be reused.
The layout dimension that is stored in
Somehow, in our current design, the information must be stored in an
object that exists:
[J.Pietschmann]
IIRC that's what the layout context was meant for.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. If they was change to always get a reference to
the parent layout context when they are created, and if they had a
Finn Bock wrote:
Somehow, in our current design, the information must be stored in an
object that exists:
IIRC that's what the layout context was meant for.
J.Pietschmann
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Pepping [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If in the re-use the layout would not change, the area tree could be
> reused. OTOH, if the layout would change, e.g. because another
> renderer would use a font with a different font metric, the layout
> information
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 10:43:12PM +0100, Finn Bock wrote:
> [Simon Pepping]
>
> I initially had a separate PropertyContext object where the length was
> stored. The FO element then had a reference to the PropertyContext and
> there was a PropertyContext for every FO. But since there was a
> on
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 08:22:31PM +0100, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Finn Bock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > [Simon Pepping]
> >
>
> > > However, I am not happy with your
> > > solution. During the layout process, you feed the page dimensions back
> > >
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 10:43:12PM +0100, Finn Bock wrote:
> [Simon Pepping]
>
> >Finn,
> >
> >I think it
> >would be a better design if, in order to resolve the percent-based
> >properties, you would not climb the FO tree but the Area tree. That
> >avoids feeding back results from the Area tree i
> -Original Message-
> From: Finn Bock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [Simon Pepping]
>
> > However, I am not happy with your
> > solution. During the layout process, you feed the page dimensions back
> > into the FO tree, in PageLayoutManager.createPageAreas.
>
> Yes, and in BlockLayoutMan
[Simon Pepping]
Finn,
I see you also solved another problem, viz. that fo:layout-master-set
did not return a proper IPD.
Correct. There are, I'm certain, many more cases where the layout
managers does not yet set all the dimensions needed to resolve all the
different percentages.
However, I a
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-15 20:46 ---
Finn,
I see you also solved another problem, viz. that fo:layout-master-set
did not return a proper IPD. However, I am not happy with your
so
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:32:13AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-15 02:32 ---
> I am not a XSL-FO expert but is this valid, eg.
>
> For "margin-..." properties percentages in expressions apply to the margins of
> the enclo
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-15 16:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=10366)
Unified diff against HEAD (version 2).
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-15 16:41 ---
Good catch Simon, thanks for taking time to look at it. The NPE is due to a
missing implementation of getNumeric() in RelativeNumericProperty
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-15 02:32 ---
I am not a XSL-FO expert but is this valid, eg.
For "margin-..." properties percentages in expressions apply to the margins of
the
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-14 22:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=10362)
The fo file that shows the problem
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-14 22:05 ---
Finn,
I have only just started to understand this, but I found a problem when running
the fo file which I will attach next.
Exception in thread
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-08 20:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=10273)
A unified diff against HEAD.
gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26778
[PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
Summary: [PATCH] Support for percentages and table-units
Product: Fop
Version: 1.0dev
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Other
Status: NEW
Severity:
55 matches
Mail list logo
