> John Hewson <j...@jahewson.com> hat am 8. Januar 2015 um 00:38 geschrieben: > > > > > On 7 Jan 2015, at 15:01, Leonard Rosenthol <lrose...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > I admit to never actually looking a the PDFBox Cos implementation, but > > every other implementation that I’ve worked with (and it’s been quite a > > few) have a VERY deep connection between the object and the source > > document. This is necessary in order to enable various features such as > > “on-demand read” (especially important for large arrays and streams), > > incremental updates and more. > > > > It’s your library, but I would personally strongly recommended NOT going > > in this direction… > > Thanks, however I’m not proposing any changes to how PDFBox works. We > already do on-demand reading for COS streams. When I say that there > is nothing about a COS object that is specific to a given document, I mean > only that there’s no problem sharing our Java COSStream instances between > two or more COSDocument instances. This is somewhat similar to the issue > of sharing PDPage instances between threads in Java (not safe). It’s a > specific detail of PDFBox, rather than something to do with COS in general. What about concurrent accesses and I'm not talking about multiple threads. One could import a pdf to another and alter parts of the resulting one or the source pdf which may lead to broken docs.
BR Andreas Lehmkühler
