> -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Pepping [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In my view FOP consists of a number of subsystems that are ordered > from upstream to downstream. The FO tree is the most upstream system, > the area tree (or objects that are constructed by a renderer) is the > most downstream system.
Indeed, but... > Information should flow downstream, not > upstream. (Hmm. Isn't there an Aussie in this house who disagrees? Callbacks, Peter? ;) Nah, bad example...) I gave the example of resolving a percentage p of an indefinite page-height or -width... Say you have to do this for a page that turns out to be .. quite long (--say, an ancient scroll or something.. ). For this you'd need the total width of every object laid out on the page (nothing rendered yet), then a very simple: reswidth = totwidth * (1 + p/100 ) / ( 1 - p/100 ) Don't know about you, but even *with* the possibility of the next renderer not using the same configuration as the first, I wouldn't want to just throw away a possibility of re-using the layout info and only having to reuse the calculated values (--or, in the worst case, maybe results from a calculation based upon higher-level relationships between the different configurations used) Basic point: the preferred direction of the information flow depends (almost entirely) upon the relationship between the up- and downstream events that is being You are IMO very correct by stating that 'if the Layout info can be reused, so can the AT and the renderer', however, if I interpret correctly, the latter two are designed to dispose of their created objects ASAP. The downstream objects hold a reference to the upstream ones, not the other way around --unless you have a way out of there, as long as a certain page-sequence is referenced, the entire Layout/AT/Renderer structure would exist in memory, which can get .. quite large even for moderately sized documents. Would it really be worth a shot to change the design there, and flip a switch? Throw the FOTree away and just fill up the AT and re-use that? Cheers, Andreas
