Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.220.155 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=G7IBinxS5FZ88/YDOh4tiqVRtIaqW9+0zmzEQuBYAdM28ZFkPaBOtOarJo52CbJTgO
         +oygs7OjLx8L8JM1Z5u4pao+HPQf28lx2rTJQCmkgike4pR0Admk75+2IIM6G9u5zhwn
         fDss5oZMf4gv9qo70YKrtwBOfCc0HyZuuut8g=
Message-ID: <61b5d9410810100457u6052f001u6a31d1f91352ff45@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:57:52 -0400
From: "Benson Margulies" <bimargulies@gmail.com>
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to handle a configuration problem generally in CXF code
In-Reply-To: <48ED3FA7.3000705@die-schneider.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48EA902F.2050805@die-schneider.net>
	 <200810071617.45941.dkulp@apache.org>
	 <48EBD447.3010809@die-schneider.net>
	 <61b5d9410810071503t1769dfbai6953773a203603fa@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48ED3FA7.3000705@die-schneider.net>

Are you sure that none of the tools are using the Message class directly?

The message class still seems to be good modularity to me. I'm +1 on
the new constructors, all the same.


On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Christian Schneider
<chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> I would propose to add the following to UncheckedException and corresponding
> "super" calls to all exceptions.
>
>   public UncheckedException(String code, ResourceBundle bundle,
> Object...params) {
>       this(new Message(code, bundle, params));
>   }
>     public UncheckedException(String code, Throwable t, ResourceBundle
> bundle, Object...params) {
>       this(new Message(code, bundle, params), t);
>   }
>
> To use these you could do the following at the start of the class:
>   static final Logger LOG = LogUtils.getL7dLogger(JMSConfigFeature.class);
>   static final ResourceBundle BUNDLE = LOG.getResourceBundle();
>
> and then:
> throw new ConfigurationException("JMSCONFIGFEATURE_ONLY_JMS", BUNDLE);
>
> I have checked where the i18n Message is used and it seems only to be used
> for exceptions. So would it perhaps make sense to deprecate it and always
> create exceptions like above?
> Was there a special reason for the introduction of i18n Message?
> Any opinions?
>
> Greetings
>
> Christian
>
>
> Benson Margulies schrieb:
>>
>> I'm +1 to the constructor. I find the new-ing of messages to be a pain.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Christian Schneider
>> <chris@die-schneider.net
>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Christian Schneider
> ---
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
>