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] 2007-02-12 02:10 ------- (In reply to comment #23) > Adrian, thanks for doing this! I've looked at the patch and have a few > comments > myself: > - I'd suggest to rename "strict-configuration" to "validate-configuration" > (just > a personal preference). The configuration will still be validated regardless of the setting of this variable. Its just how the error is handled that makes the difference. If "strict-configuration" is true then FOP will immediately throw an exception and processing will terminate. If "strict-configuration" is set to false then FOP will log the error and attempt to continue parsing the configuration (if possible/meaningful). > - the name of the variable "strictFO" in FopFactory.configure(Configuration) > seems wrong. There's nothing "FO" specific there. Furthermore, some "if > (strictFO)" should actually be "if (strictConfig)", right? I think you may have been looking at an older patch. The variable "strictValidation" is as before and the new variable is called "strictUserConfigValidation". > Adrian, would you please install the CheckStyle plug-in in your IDE? There > are a > few nits about the Java style in your patch. Checkstyle will help you find > them. > > Get well quickly, Adrian! After a weekend in bed am feeling much better today thanks. I had installed checksytle but not enabled it! ;-( I will recreate the patch this morning. All the best, Adrian. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
