> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· > RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT > <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41514>. > ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· > INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41514 > > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 02:28 ------- > (In reply to comment #10) >> I had a short look at the patch, and I have the following comments: >> >> Do not change the 0.93 documentation but the trunk documentation: >> src/documentation/content/xdocs/trunk/configuration.xml, etc. > > Oops, yes I missed that. I will update the patch file to make changes to the > trunk xdocs and not 0.93. > >> TargetResolution is a property of FOUserAgent because it may easily vary with >> each run. It is not a good idea if you move properties around. They are in >> FopFactory or in FOUserAgent for a reason. See >> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/trunk/embedding.html. > > There is no real change here. TargetResolution is still a property of > FOUserAgent, it is just configured from FopFactory and propagated to the > FOUserAgent. As before, the value of this property in FOUserAgent can be > programmatically set at anytime during rendering.
Yes, the patch doesn't seem to break anything. We could even go a bit further: the cfg parameter is no longer used in the FOUserAgent.configure() method, it might be removed. Also, would the FopFactory.getUserConfig() method not be public, I would even remove it, and move the logic that is in FOUserAgent.getUserRendererConfig into FopFactory. Is that getUserConfig() method supposed to have any utility to embedding applications? I would answer no, but what do embedding specialists think about it? Vincent