AreaTree.AreaTreeModel

[Oleg Tkachenko <ol...@multiconn.com>]

Hello!

Just curious, why AreaTreeModel is defined as static inner class of 
AreaTree class? It doesn't look like real inner class as it's abstract 
and has 3 implementations. Are there any objections against moving it out?

-- 
Oleg Tkachenko
eXperanto team
Multiconn Technologies, Israel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org

Re: AreaTree.AreaTreeModel

[Keiron Liddle <ke...@aftexsw.com>]

On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 00:56, Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Just curious, why AreaTreeModel is defined as static inner class of 
> AreaTree class? It doesn't look like real inner class as it's abstract 
> and has 3 implementations. Are there any objections against moving it out?

Mainly it is there because that is where it was put first. The initial
idea was that the model would be internal to the AreaTree and not really
need to be known outside.
The development has shown that the case is different and there will be
external implementations, such as caching, which could be created in
other places.

So it would probably be better moved out, so go ahead. The
implementations should also be moved out.

By the way, I have checked that the area tree, renderer and pdf lib are
not holding onto any memory apart from current working objects (when
caching), such as a page and current pdf stream.




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org