Hi Bharath, On May 19, 2016, at 11:06 AM, Bluv Nallakaluva <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think the change looks fine. > > However I want confirm the reason for the check “type == TIFFTag.LONG” > besides type == TIFFTag.TIFF_IFD_POINTER . > From this http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/tiff/TIFFPM6.pdf. , > it is clear that IFD /LONG type can be used for the tag “SubIFD”. (this entry > points to a Thumbnail IFD) > Here the IFD entry corresponding to this tag should have the node name > “TIFFIFD” which makes sense. > > So there might be other IFD entries that would have a tag whose type can be > LONG and still they have the value as the address to the actual IFD just like > the above “SubIFD” > And for these entries the node name being “TIFFIFD” is valid. > > Can you confirm if my understanding is correct ? Yes that is correct. There were sub-IFDs in existence prior to Adobe’s PM spec and they used type LONG. We encountered some more than a decade ago. > Also I think I caught one more place where this instanceof is used in > TIFFFieldNode, > The following excerpt from TIFFFieldNode constructor. I believe this one > should also be fixed. > > isIFD = field.getData() instanceof TIFFDirectory; You are correct: good catch - thanks. I’ll update the webrev. Thanks, Brian
