Is it accurate that all versions through 3.0.0-alpha2 *do *raise exceptions
then? Just not alpha3?
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 2:06 AM Tilman Hausherr <thaush...@t-online.de>
wrote:
>
> > My question is: was this intentional to silently fail? We realize that
> with
> > the wide amount of content that we receive that there are going to be
> "bad"
> > PDFs which is fine, but currently we are relying on PDFBox to tell us
> *when* it
> > is something that we shouldn't continue any further post-processing on or
> > not but if it silently fails, we think that if nothing blows up that it
> > means that we've received all of the pages. If we were to go to alpha3,
> > this would not be a true assumption any longer.
>
> This has been for years that we have allowed all sort of broken PDFs to
> pass, because this was the majority of the users wish, expressed by the
> often repeated emotional text "But it renders with Adobe Reader!".
>
> Using PDFBox to check whether a PDF is valid isn't a good idea. Try a
> tool like JHOVE.
>
> Tilman
>
>
> >
> > Effectively we loop through a PDF to extract pages like so:
> >
> > Splitter splitter = new Splitter();
> > for(PDDocument page : splitter.split(document)) {
> > // save each page for consumption later
> > }
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any information that you can provide regarding our
> > expectations of this behavior.
> >
> > - Levi
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@pdfbox.apache.org
>
>
