Jeremias, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>I hope you forgive me my switching over to fop-dev which is the right >place for this discussion. > Of course. > >First, I'd like to start asking if you intend to work on this in the >maintenance or the main branch. If you're working on the main branch, I >wouldn't go down to details on how to fix this, because IMHO the current >config mechanism has to be completely replaced. > Maintenance, for the reasons you mention. > >For the maintenance branch I'm not so sure that you can do with only a >little tweaking. The problems lies in >org.apache.fop.configuration.Configuration which has multiple static >fields that are accessed by the whole project. This is a simple >mechanism to work with but can limit the flexibility of FOP. >Options.java itself contains no static stuff but works with >Configuration.java a lot. > ...configuration.Configuration is unaffected. > >I think, we shouldn't mix CommandLineOptions and Options, because they >are different concerns (One is for command-line interpreting, the other >for loading a configuration). > I want to merge them because they are so alike. System congfig, user config and command line are a hierarchy of configuration options, and should be unified, with each one overriding the next. > >The problem with refering to the userconfig in the systemconfig is (IMO) >that you cannot have multiple (user-)configurations with one >installation of FOP. You'd limit the usefulness of FOP again somewhat. > Yes you can, if you allow the command line configuration to take precedence. The system config file then contains your default user config, which defaults to null (as it does at the moment.) It's very handy for testing. My test environment goes in the user config, and java org.apache.fop.apps.Fop runs it all. Note that the loadUserConfig funtionality checks for the user config file first in user space, then in system space, which would by default pick up the null distributed user config example if the user does nothing. And it that's too dangerous, comment out the definition of the user config file in the system config. > >If you ask me, I wouldn't change the configuration stuff in the >maintenance branch. What needs to be done is to improve the >documentation on loading the userconfig file. I'll see to it that I can >finally scrape together some time to work on FOP. > Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
