[poppler] Poppler and MOAB-06-01-2007
krh at bitplanet.net
Thu Jan 11 05:45:48 PST 2007
On 1/10/07, Vincent Torri <vtorri at univ-evry.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > but i'm not going to commit it to poppler since krh oposes completely to use
> > stl for poppler.
> what is the reason ?
It's not about performance, it's not about how well supported stl is
or isn't. The thing it that when you contribute to a project you try
to follow the conventions already established in that project. If a
project uses C++ you don't submit a python patch. If a project uses
STL, you don't reimplement a set data structure. If a project doesn't
use STL you don't just pull it in for a 50 line patch. It's not
rocket science it's not me being a unreasonable maintainer, it's just
common sense. Stop being a drama queen.
If we wanted to use STL there are so many more interesting cases than
this fix. For example, all the crappy reimplementations of various
standard data structures in goo/. I don't really want to shake up
poppler in a big way like that, though. We don't need big rewrites
unless we actually add new features in the process.
And the problem in this case is how to prevent looping when we have
circular references in the page tree. To prevent this we can do two
things: the one idea that Albert doesn't like is to just limit the
depth of the page tree. We can either choose a fixed limit or use the
total number of references as a limit. If there is a page tree chain
longer than, say, 1000, the document is most certainly malicious. On
the other hand, we can easily handle a recusion level of 1000, so we
can detect it and bail out safely in that case.
The other idea is to just put a 'visited' bit in each node of the page
tree. If wee see a page that already has the 'visited' bit set we
know something is wrong and we can bail out right away.
Simplicity is a virture - choose the simplest solution that works.
More information about the poppler