[poppler] [PATCH] Add setContents() to modify the annot contents

[Albert Astals Cid]

A Dimarts, 21 d'abril de 2009, Carlos Garcia Campos va escriure:
> El lun, 20-04-2009 a las 21:56 +0200, Albert Astals Cid escribió:
> > A Dilluns, 20 d'abril de 2009, Carlos Garcia Campos va escriure:
> > > El dom, 19-04-2009 a las 23:41 +0200, Albert Astals Cid escribió:
> > > > A Dissabte, 18 d'abril de 2009, Carlos Garcia Campos va escriure:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > we are still lacking write support in annotations. This patch, to
> > > > > be able to modify the contents of an annotation, it's just a first
> > > > > step.
> > > > >
> > > > > ok to commit?
> > > >
> > > > contents = new GooString(new_content);
> > > >
> > > > crashes if new_content is null, so you either protect this or remove
> > > > the protection in
> > >
> > > fair enough. It makes me wonder what should we do in this case, I mean,
> > > the Contents field is optional in the annotation array, should we
> > > remove the key from the dict when NULL is set? or shouldn't we even
> > > allow passing NULL to setContents()?
> >
> > I just would mark on the header that passing a NULL value to set contents
> > is not ok, if you want to clear something just pass GooString() and
> > that's all
> >
> > > > if (new_content && !contents->hasUnicodeMarker()) {
> > > >
> > > > I think obj1 is missing a free().
> > >
> > > No, because it's owned by the Dict.
> >
> > Right, i got tricked thinking that operator= in Object was the same as
> > copy.
> >
> > > > Also you should probably update the modified member too.
> > >
> > > What do you mean with the modified member?
> >
> > GooString *modified; inside class Annot.
>
> I have committed the path without this for the moment. In page 1113 of
> the pdf spec it says: "Acrobat viewers update the annotation
> dictionary’s M entry only for text
> annotations"
>
> Should we follow this and implement it only for text annotations?

Hmpf, any reason in favor or against that? I'm leaning to doing it for all of 
them, unless someone knows why Acrobat decided to do it only for text and 
seems to make sense.

BTW could you add a comment into the header near setContents saying the 
ownership of the GooString is not taken and so the caller is responsible of 
deleting it?

Albert

>
> > Albert
> >
> > > > Otherwise it think this can't hurt to let it go in :D
> > >
> > > Great, I'll commit it when I know what to do with the NULL case.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > > Albert
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > poppler mailing list
> > > > poppler at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > poppler mailing list
> > poppler at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler