I'm not sure I like this whole thing, yet. Of course, your suggestion is fine. But there's one thing that needs to be figured out: The configuration is applied to the FopFactory. Having the configuration on this level provides a multi-threading problem as multiple rendering runs might simultaneously modify the configuration of the shared FopFactory.
On 26.02.2008 22:17:59 Andreas Delmelle wrote: > > Hi all > > Some time ago, Adrian posted an interesting suggestion on fop-users@ > for an extension that would basically allow a configuration to be > bound to a single document: a fox:configuration node that could be > specified as a descendant of the fo:declarations. > > Now, I just wondered about the following: instead of making it an > extension, maybe we could dedicate a special namespace to FOP's > configuration. The nodes that are now present in the sample fop.xconf > could then appear anywhere in the document. For some options the > appearances should probably best be restricted, but imagine something > like: > > <fo:root xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format"; > xmlns:cfg="http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/config"; > ... > <fo:block> > <cfg:fop> > <cfg:strict-validation>false</cfg:strict-validation> > <cfg:base>file://absolute/path</cfg:base> > </cfg:fop> > ... > <fo:external-graphic src="relative/path/to/image.png" /> > <fo:external-graphic src="relative/path/to/another/image.png" /> > </fo:block> <!-- end of scope for the cfg:* settings --> > > An author would be able to override default configuration settings on > a per-FO basis, with an implied scope of the entire document if the > settings are specified as direct descendants of the fo:root. > > > Just a thought... > > > Cheers > > Andreas Jeremias Maerki
