DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41514] - [PATCH] Strict url validation of user config

2007-02-09 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41514] - [PATCH] Strict url validation of user config

2007-02-09 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41514] - [PATCH] Strict url validation of user config

2007-02-09 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 09.02.2007 10:21:23 Vincent Hennebert wrote: > > Going further along this train of thought.. IMO, in an ideal world all > > this config stuff should be abstracted in a separate class such as > > FopConfig - so code dependencies on the avalon Configurable interface > > would be minimised and c

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41514] - [PATCH] Strict url validation of user config

2007-02-09 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41514] - [PATCH] Strict url validation of user config

2007-02-09 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41514] - [PATCH] Strict url validation of user config

2007-02-09 Thread Vincent Hennebert
Hi Adrian, Adrian Cumiskey a écrit : > Vincent Hennebert wrote: >> >> 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() m