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]  2007-02-12 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.

Reply via email to