beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ken Tam" <>
Subject RE: The Controls Client Manifest
Date Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:44:15 GMT
Hey Wolfgang,

Thanks for pointing this out.  This wasn't a concern primarily because
the manifest as defined specifies control implementation class and
interface names, for which localization doesn't apply.  Being able to
use ResourceBundle to load it (and/or resolve alternate locale-specific
versions of the file) isn't really important.  Being able to use
java.util.Properties _is_ important.

That said, the filename convention is by no means carved in stone -- if
you've got a compelling proposal, we should consider it.  My reasoning
for "<classname>" went as follows:

It's a Properties, so it should have a .properties extension.  Given the
manifest's form could change (e.g., it could be expressed in XML), this
seemed a valuable initial discriminator.  We could go with a .mf
extension too, but the format isn't really the same as e.g.
At the same time, it seemed bad form to hijack <classname>.properties
for the controls model -- that's a little too generic.
"<classname>" or somesuch is inconsistent (why use
"-" as a separator when you're already using "." somewhere else) and
somewhat ugly.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] 
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 8:51 PM
> To:
> Subject: The Controls Client Manifest
> Hello there,
> In "1.3. The Controls Client Manifest" of wiki 
> (,
> It says "Example client manifest (e.g. named 
> "
> and "TBD: reconsider filename convention?".
> Is the filename convention already decided ?
> I don't know how the manifest file would be loaded, but if 
> there's a chance that ResourceBundle class trys to load the 
> manifest file (""), it will fail.
> Because the ResourceBundle class searchs a 
> file in a FooImpl directory.
> Please watch out.
> I guess we'd better not use multiple dots in a file name for safety.
> Thanks.
> wolfgang

View raw message