I am pleased that you undertake this kind of cleanup work in the layout engine. It is very useful that you try to make this piece of code more accessible.
Simon On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 12:18:15AM +0100, Andreas Delmelle wrote: > On 05 Feb 2011, at 22:49, adelme...@apache.org wrote: > > > Author: adelmelle > > Date: Sat Feb 5 21:49:58 2011 > > New Revision: 1067533 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1067533&view=rev > > Log: > > Code cleanup > > > > Modified: > > > > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgr/BlockStackingLayoutManager.java > > In preparation of decommissioning its StackingIter, I noticed I had some > minor cleanups ready for this class. Checking closer, the code was still way > too messy for my taste, so I went further --and further... Quite far, > actually, so a bit of explanation needed in case someone goes looking for > code that I removed. > > I noticed there was quite a lot of code that, in fact, was never, ever used. > It seemed like an experiment from Luca, that likely should have been kept in > a branch instead of being committed to the trunk in an incomplete state. All > it did here was confuse people, in a class which is quite heavily used. > I first spent quite some time cleaning up commented log.debug() statements in > the method createUnitElements(), then decided to check where the method was > called, and found it was only used in one place, in getChangedKnuthElements(): > > > -/* estensione: conversione complessiva */ > > -/*LF*/ if (bpUnit > 0) { > > -/*LF*/ storedList = returnedList; > > -/*LF*/ returnedList = createUnitElements(returnedList); > > -/*LF*/ } > > Now, that bpUnit member is written *only* in BlockLayoutManager and > BlockContainerLayoutManager, where it is set to 0 in the initialize() method. > In effect, the method was unused, so I decided to bite the bullet and remove > it. > > Additionally, given the above, I have also removed similar references to this > bpUnit member in other places, which eliminates some conditional branches. I > have not yet removed the variable itself, since it is still read in a few > subclasses. > > > Regards, > > Andreas > --- >
