geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@coredevelopers.net>
Subject Re: [i18n] Hardcoded message strings
Date Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:26:04 GMT

On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 05:35 AM, Alex Blewitt wrote:

> On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 09:06 Europe/London, James Strachan 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 07:13  pm, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> -1 for the reason below and I believe this type of requirement on 
>>> programmers will lead to worse exception handling.  If a developer 
>>> has to add a new class for every exception message, they won't throw 
>>> exceptions.
>>
>> Then they're very lazy developers :)
>
> Absoultely. Being a lazy developer is great; learn to make the tools 
> work for you. In eclipse, you can say 'throw new 
> NonExistantException()' and then the red-squiggle underline gives you 
> a prompt to create the class...

I for one hope that this idea dies right here.  There are no lazy 
developers here.  This is an opensource project and anyone that shows 
up is definitely not lazy.  We have a certain amount of effort 
available to us, and we can choose to use it by making developers do 
tedious development tasks, because one day someone might find it 
useful, or we can point them at exciting stuff people need today.  
Also, if coding on geronimo is tedious because of our development 
rules, very few will join us and our over all effort pool will be even 
smaller.

Before we add any such rules, I think we need to thing about weather 
the rule is worth the effort expense and impact on our over all effort 
pool.

-dain

/*************************
  * Dain Sundstrom
  * Partner
  * Core Developers Network
  *************************/


Mime
View raw message