geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <>
Subject Re: [i18n] Hardcoded message strings
Date Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:35:49 GMT
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 09:06 Europe/London, James Strachan 

> 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...

> Leaving exception messages in the code (with or without i18n) is a 
> code smell IMHO. Especially when often lots of useful exception 
> details are hidden in the text message, rather than being exposed as 
> typesafe getters.

I think it's important to treat the two points separately; non-i18n 
messages, and data-in-messages. It's much better (as you say) to have 
them stored in exception instance variables (where appropriate) and 
then weave them into the message later; hence the i18n messages of the 
form 'User %{0} logged in".

> public class FooException extends Exception {
> 	public static FooException newFailedToOpenFileException(File file) {
> 		return new FooException("", 
> file);
> 	}
> 	public static FooException newFailedToCloseFileException(File file, 
> int bar) {
> 		return new 
> FooException("", file, bar);
> 	}
> }

Or even better:

public class FooException extends Exception {
   public static void generate(File file) throws FooException {
     throw new FooException("",file);

-- after all, there's not (often) a point in having an exception 
instance without throwing it.

> The main aim I'm suggesting is to save littering the code with 
> exception message text, i18n patterns and so forth and unify their use 
> inside the Exception classes themselves. Whether there is a nice 
> exception hierarchy to catch exact exceptions or there are big generic 
> exceptions that serve many different purposes (which I don't 
> personally like), we can still easily hide the message text & i18n 
> inside the exception classes - which will make refactoring easier down 
> the road.

Absolutely. However, the [i18n] thread was also raised to discuss 
messages outside of exceptions, too -- IMHO it's become somewhat 
exception-focussed recently.


View raw message