Mailing-List: contact users-help@pdfbox.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@pdfbox.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: Maruan Sahyoun <sahyoun@fileaffairs.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_1ECE705C-81B7-4A07-80FB-DD09059E5ED3"
Message-Id: <7BC71DBD-FE05-44D8-9EC5-C720750326CC@fileaffairs.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
Subject: Re: PDFParser Conflict Resolution
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:23:09 +0100
References: <5307D765.3000004@eesoh.com>
To: users@pdfbox.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <5307D765.3000004@eesoh.com>

--Apple-Mail=_1ECE705C-81B7-4A07-80FB-DD09059E5ED3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252

Hi,

the PDFParser works sequentially throughout the file from top to bottom =
and collects all objects. Conflict resolution is done by making the =
assumption that if an object with the same number exists later in the =
file that this should be the correct one.

NonSequentialParser works through the file by looking at the Xref =
information (table or stream). This is inline with the PDF =
specification.

So patching as you=92ve done might resolve your issue but might also =
introduce issues with other files. The best way would be to find out why =
NonSequentialParser has issues parsing your file. If you think it=92s a =
bug please open an issue in jira =
[https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX] and attach the PDF file =
to together with some sample code.

BR
Maruan Sahyoun

Am 21.02.2014 um 23:47 schrieb Cary L. Schofield =
<cary.schofield@eesoh.com>:

> I have a signed document that is getting parsed incorrectly.
>=20
> Using PDFParser the document form is missing all fields and I can't =
get to the signature fields.
> Using NonSequentialPDFParser I can get to the signature fields but the =
signed data appears to have been corrupted.
>=20
> I was able to determine that the form was being replaced or corrupted =
during conflict resolution.
>=20
> I solved the problem by patching PDFParser.ConflictObj to ignore an =
object in the conflict list when the existing object (from the object =
pool) is a direct object.
>=20
> I know I should do the research, but was hoping someone would already =
know if the patch is reasonable or likely to cause more/other problems.
>=20
> Thanks
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_1ECE705C-81B7-4A07-80FB-DD09059E5ED3--