Merge request of text layout restructuring

[Pierre Stirnweiss]

Well, I have only looked at the code through gitweb, which seems not to
allow an easy way of finding the relevant diff to master (maybe I am using
the tool incorrectly): the commits specific to this branch do not seem to be
highlighted. I have looked at the commits "Move text run around attributes
from Words frame class...", "Move Line out into a file of it's own" and
"Move Line and Outline  from Words to TextShape". I would have liked a way
to find a condensed diff to the master branch.

At first view, things seem ok. I have not yet tested the branch in real
life. I have a question though: what impact does it have (if any) on other
apps using the textshape (Stage comes to my mind)? These where not getting
this run-around behaviour from the textShape.

Another minor thing. Shouldn't the properties/methods "textRunAroundSide"
and "textRunAroundDistance" be called a more generic way? There might be
other shapes which would run their content around shapes (the musicShape
could an example of this). Perhaps remove the "text" from the name?
Also, to be more consistent, the Through enum should be named RunThrough, it
is after all set by setRunThrough().

In principle, I think we should merge this ASAP if we want it to be included
in the next release. There should be enough time to test it and iron out
things. The month before release would be a bad idea.


PierreSt



On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM, C. Boemann <cbo at boemann.dk> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Last week I worked on the text layout, and I'm now requesting a merge of
> the
> branch I worked in:
>
> text-layoutrestructure-boemann
>
> What I've done is moving the text runaround properties from the KWFrame
> class
> to KoShape
>
> Secondly I moved the runaround code from KWord to the TextShape.
> However it is still the responsibility of the application to supply the
> textshape with the relevant shapes.
>
> This was stepd 2-4 in my big 7 step master plan that I've talked to all
> words
> developers about.
>
> Please take a look, and comment.
>
> I've made basic testing and I'm rather confident that there are no
> regressions.
> Many unit test might be broken, and should be disabled for now.
>
> Review mainly requested from hanzes,pierreSt ,pinaraf, sebsauer, but also
> anyone else who think they have something to contribute.
>
> best regards
> Casper
> Best regards
> _______________________________________________
> calligra-devel mailing list
> calligra-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/calligra-devel/attachments/20110114/254941bc/attachment.htm>