<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#c6">Comment # 6</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>(In reply to Albert Astals Cid from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=106356#c5">comment #5</a>) > I don't agree it's a good abstraction, you're duplicating API, by having > "the same enum values" in two different places, which for people that are > "not you or me" makes you wonder why that happens or if one is the new and > the other the old, or what. Ok. > I think adding a new function accepting the annotation enums, is exactly > fullfiling that "this class is just provided for consistency" comment. > > You know you want the MousePressed action, but since there is that comment > you go to the form field classes, and there you go, there's exactly the > function accepting what you want. > > Why is it any different for Okular? In Okular I also didn't want to add a new additionalAction function / Enum to Okular::FormField with an additional underlying QHash for the new actions but found it more elegant to reuse the old structure and just extend it for the new actions. But yes, it does not make much difference and you are right that the API is more direct if we split it. I'll update the patches accordingly.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>