On Sunday 10 September 2006 20:52, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Ok, I consider myself defeated concerning the way we handle the
> configuration file (See recent threads on fop-users). The Avalon
> configuration approach is very nice for the developer but obviously
> bullshit in terms of end-user-friendlyness. The attempt to overlay
> the configuration layout with an XSD is generally a good idea but
> with the current configuration layout, it's not a workable solution.
>
Not sure I agree with the "bleak" picture you are painting. In my 
assessment most problems seem to be caused by the change of config 
format from 0.20.5 to 0.9x. Not by the format itself.

What about having a command line option which triggers a config file 
validation. Similar to Apache HTTPD:
    apachectl -t

"Run a configuration file syntax test. It parses  the  configura-
tion  files and either reports Syntax Ok or detailed information
about  the  particular  syntax  error."

Manuel
> If anyone has a good plan to improve the situation, I'm all ears. I
> think the configuration file needs to be built based on an XML Schema
> and FOP should by default validate the configuration file (hard-coded
> in FOP) so the users get proper feedback if they try to feed FOP with
> an invalid format. But that means the XML Schema must be water-tight.
> On the other side, we will probably lose extensibility of the
> configuration file format. When someone adds his own renderer, for
> example, he can't just have his own config values because he can't
> change the XML Schema. So that may mean we probably can't use XML
> Schema to validate the file. But then, maybe we can define the
> individual renderer config parts as xsd:any or something like that
> and let each renderer validate its own configuration (either manually
> or using an XSD).
>
> ATM, I can't think of a good solution but apparently, we need to
> change something at some point. Any ideas, thoughts?
>
> Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to