> -----Original Message----- > From: Finn Bock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [Andreas L. Delmelle] > > > Hmmm... coming back to my recent question about the use of/access to the > > background-color property: I somehow would feel much for > further extending > > the way the Common*Properties are handled. IIC, the calls like the above > > should only happen in the background via the propMgr of the > FObj, and not > > become part of the public API. > > I dunno. The spec clearly list which properties that apply for a element: > > file:///d:/java/REC-xsl/slice6.html#fo_external-graphic >
(Off-topic: Finn, I don't think I have access to your d:-drive ;) ) > so it makes sense to find the same list of assignments in the layout > managers. > Indeed it does, but I don't think Layout needs them all, neither does it need them in their initial 'states' (don't really know what other word to use for this...). For instance: <fo:block background-color="inherited-property-value(color)" ...> The layout manager doesn't need _this_ value of the property, it needs the actual ColorType (so I guess I basically agree with your comment about the more abstract version). <snip /> > Yeah, if it make sense to add more groups of properties together (and it > seems that such a ipd,bpd pair make sense) I don't see a problem adding > that. > I just think this will lead to an API that's a bit clearer, cleaner and so, in the long run, easier to manage and maintain. I don't really know whether the Common*Properties were separated out because they are, well, common, and it's more efficient for them to be treated as a bundle. Maybe it was originally the intention of creating property groups along the groups in which they are divided in the spec (see http://xml.apache.org/fop/compliance.html)? AFAICT the basic framework is already present to tie the 'propertyList.get(...)'-calls all together in the PropertyManager. If it is decided at a later point that something needs to be added/modified WRT Properties, this could avoid having to modify numerous corresponding propertyList.get()-calls in all related FObj's / LM's / Areas. ( Referring to the string->int conversion, and the hours Glen has spent to trace the calls and replace the constant-names... ) > > ... > > Length ipd = aProps.ipd; > > Yes, except that it is a LengthRange property. > Ouch! My mistake :) Cheers, Andreas
