You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pdfbox.apache.org by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> on 2015/07/13 00:17:29 UTC
[DISCUSS] Inconsistencies between annotation and form package
Hi,
there are some inconsistencies between the annotation package and the form package how static final fields are handled. The classes in the annotation package have these public. The classes in the form package have these private or package private. I'd propose to make them public in the form package.
Furthermore there are some minor differences between method names such as setReadOnly() in annotation and setReadonly() in form which I'd like to make consistent prior to 2.0.0
WDYT?
BR
Maruan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistencies between annotation and form package
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> On 13 Jul 2015, at 00:57, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>
>
>> Am 13.07.2015 um 09:42 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>
>>
>>> On 13 Jul 2015, at 00:27, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Am 13.07.2015 um 08:55 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 22:50, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 13.07.2015 um 03:18 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:17, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there are some inconsistencies between the annotation package and the form package how static final fields are handled. The classes in the annotation package have these public. The classes in the form package have these private or package private. I'd propose to make them public in the form package.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought the goal for 2.0 was to move from using integer constants to enums?
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point. Why not change the visibility first and if time permits move to enums? ATM the AP issues for fields are more important.
>>>>
>>>> One reason not to change would be that once it’s public there’s no going back if we don’t move to enums before 2.0.
>>>
>>> yes, otoh it would leave us with the inconsitency between annotation and form which is also not good
>>
>> True, I suppose the question then is, should these fields be public at all? Given that we have PD accessors for the individual flags which they set, I think the answer is actually “no”. These are COS-level values which PD should hide.
>
> The accessors are fine and are the primary API that should be used. If there is a setter/getter missing we should add that.
>
> If - for whatever reason - a users decides to use the COS level objects it's beneficial to have these values so one could use dictionary.setFlag. So the (only) use case it to allow using the COS level and have the values at hand with a readable name instead of numeric or string values.
That reason would apply to any COS API though and we know that’s not the purpose of PD. There’s simply isn’t a need for these flags to be public in PD, it’s just a source of confusion. e.g. the user on the mailing list thinks they need these flags to be public to work with forms - but they don’t. I think that proves my point.
Keeping flags private is a pretty common pattern in PD, for example PDFontDescriptor does this too.
It seems to be that the inconsistency is actually with annotations, they should be providing public accessors (or enums) in PD for the flags e.g. isXYZ(), instead of using integer constants.
— John
> Maruan
>
>
>
>>
>> — John
>>
>>> Maruan
>>>
>>>>
>>>> — John
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> — John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore there are some minor differences between method names such as setReadOnly() in annotation and setReadonly() in form which I'd like to make consistent prior to 2.0.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that definitely wants to be setReadOnly().
>>>>>
>>>>> Will change it.
>>>>>
>>>>> BR
>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistencies between annotation and form package
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
> Am 13.07.2015 um 09:42 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>
>
>> On 13 Jul 2015, at 00:27, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 13.07.2015 um 08:55 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 22:50, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 13.07.2015 um 03:18 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:17, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there are some inconsistencies between the annotation package and the form package how static final fields are handled. The classes in the annotation package have these public. The classes in the form package have these private or package private. I'd propose to make them public in the form package.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the goal for 2.0 was to move from using integer constants to enums?
>>>>
>>>> Good point. Why not change the visibility first and if time permits move to enums? ATM the AP issues for fields are more important.
>>>
>>> One reason not to change would be that once it’s public there’s no going back if we don’t move to enums before 2.0.
>>
>> yes, otoh it would leave us with the inconsitency between annotation and form which is also not good
>
> True, I suppose the question then is, should these fields be public at all? Given that we have PD accessors for the individual flags which they set, I think the answer is actually “no”. These are COS-level values which PD should hide.
The accessors are fine and are the primary API that should be used. If there is a setter/getter missing we should add that.
If - for whatever reason - a users decides to use the COS level objects it's beneficial to have these values so one could use dictionary.setFlag. So the (only) use case it to allow using the COS level and have the values at hand with a readable name instead of numeric or string values.
Maruan
>
> — John
>
>> Maruan
>>
>>>
>>> — John
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> — John
>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore there are some minor differences between method names such as setReadOnly() in annotation and setReadonly() in form which I'd like to make consistent prior to 2.0.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that definitely wants to be setReadOnly().
>>>>
>>>> Will change it.
>>>>
>>>> BR
>>>> Maruan
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BR
>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistencies between annotation and form package
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> On 13 Jul 2015, at 00:27, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>
>
>> Am 13.07.2015 um 08:55 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>
>>
>>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 22:50, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Am 13.07.2015 um 03:18 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:17, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> there are some inconsistencies between the annotation package and the form package how static final fields are handled. The classes in the annotation package have these public. The classes in the form package have these private or package private. I'd propose to make them public in the form package.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the goal for 2.0 was to move from using integer constants to enums?
>>>
>>> Good point. Why not change the visibility first and if time permits move to enums? ATM the AP issues for fields are more important.
>>
>> One reason not to change would be that once it’s public there’s no going back if we don’t move to enums before 2.0.
>
> yes, otoh it would leave us with the inconsitency between annotation and form which is also not good
True, I suppose the question then is, should these fields be public at all? Given that we have PD accessors for the individual flags which they set, I think the answer is actually “no”. These are COS-level values which PD should hide.
— John
> Maruan
>
>>
>> — John
>>
>>>>
>>>> — John
>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore there are some minor differences between method names such as setReadOnly() in annotation and setReadonly() in form which I'd like to make consistent prior to 2.0.0
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that definitely wants to be setReadOnly().
>>>
>>> Will change it.
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Maruan
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> BR
>>>>> Maruan
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistencies between annotation and form package
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
> Am 13.07.2015 um 08:55 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>
>
>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 22:50, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 13.07.2015 um 03:18 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:17, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> there are some inconsistencies between the annotation package and the form package how static final fields are handled. The classes in the annotation package have these public. The classes in the form package have these private or package private. I'd propose to make them public in the form package.
>>>
>>> I thought the goal for 2.0 was to move from using integer constants to enums?
>>
>> Good point. Why not change the visibility first and if time permits move to enums? ATM the AP issues for fields are more important.
>
> One reason not to change would be that once it’s public there’s no going back if we don’t move to enums before 2.0.
yes, otoh it would leave us with the inconsitency between annotation and form which is also not good
Maruan
>
> — John
>
>>>
>>> — John
>>>
>>>> Furthermore there are some minor differences between method names such as setReadOnly() in annotation and setReadonly() in form which I'd like to make consistent prior to 2.0.0
>>>
>>> Yes, that definitely wants to be setReadOnly().
>>
>> Will change it.
>>
>> BR
>> Maruan
>>
>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> BR
>>>> Maruan
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistencies between annotation and form package
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> On 12 Jul 2015, at 22:50, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>
>
>> Am 13.07.2015 um 03:18 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>
>>
>>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:17, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> there are some inconsistencies between the annotation package and the form package how static final fields are handled. The classes in the annotation package have these public. The classes in the form package have these private or package private. I'd propose to make them public in the form package.
>>
>> I thought the goal for 2.0 was to move from using integer constants to enums?
>
> Good point. Why not change the visibility first and if time permits move to enums? ATM the AP issues for fields are more important.
One reason not to change would be that once it’s public there’s no going back if we don’t move to enums before 2.0.
— John
>>
>> — John
>>
>>> Furthermore there are some minor differences between method names such as setReadOnly() in annotation and setReadonly() in form which I'd like to make consistent prior to 2.0.0
>>
>> Yes, that definitely wants to be setReadOnly().
>
> Will change it.
>
> BR
> Maruan
>
>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Maruan
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistencies between annotation and form package
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
> Am 13.07.2015 um 03:18 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>
>
>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:17, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> there are some inconsistencies between the annotation package and the form package how static final fields are handled. The classes in the annotation package have these public. The classes in the form package have these private or package private. I'd propose to make them public in the form package.
>
> I thought the goal for 2.0 was to move from using integer constants to enums?
Good point. Why not change the visibility first and if time permits move to enums? ATM the AP issues for fields are more important.
>
> — John
>
>> Furthermore there are some minor differences between method names such as setReadOnly() in annotation and setReadonly() in form which I'd like to make consistent prior to 2.0.0
>
> Yes, that definitely wants to be setReadOnly().
Will change it.
BR
Maruan
>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> BR
>> Maruan
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inconsistencies between annotation and form package
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:17, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> there are some inconsistencies between the annotation package and the form package how static final fields are handled. The classes in the annotation package have these public. The classes in the form package have these private or package private. I'd propose to make them public in the form package.
I thought the goal for 2.0 was to move from using integer constants to enums?
— John
> Furthermore there are some minor differences between method names such as setReadOnly() in annotation and setReadonly() in form which I'd like to make consistent prior to 2.0.0
Yes, that definitely wants to be setReadOnly().
> WDYT?
>
> BR
> Maruan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org