> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ·
> 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 ANDĀ·
> 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

Reply via email to