<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [PATCH] Qt5: Support additional widget actions in PDF Forms" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106356#c4">Comment # 4</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [PATCH] Qt5: Support additional widget actions in PDF Forms" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106356">bug 106356</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:aheinecke@intevation.de" title="Andre Heinecke <aheinecke@intevation.de>"> Andre Heinecke</a> <pre>I thought that combining both in a single enumeration might be a good idea because I saw: * The widget annotation represents a widget (form field) on a page. * * \note This class is just provided for consistency of the annotation API, * use the FormField classes to get all the form-related information. So I thought that it makes sense API wise to have everything related to FormFields declared in poppler-form / the FormField class. Currently there is also no dependency from poppler-form.h to poppler-annotation.h. >From an implementation standpoint, yes it would make the type differentiation in popler-form.cc FormField::additionalAction simpler by splitting both branches into two functions. But as an API user I find it simpler to only have to care about a single AdditionalAction enum. At least in Okular reducing both enum's to a single AdditionalActionType enum helps so that we don't need duplicated API to carry / access them there. I found it more elegant to directly "abstract" the difference away in the poppler-qt api.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>