geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill de hÓra <b...@dehora.net>
Subject Re: [i18n] Hardcoded message strings
Date Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:31:59 GMT
Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 03:46 PM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
> 
>> It doesn't prevent i18n either.
> 
> That is my point exactly; this is a completely different issue.  It 
> neither helps or hurts.  The example I gave was simple, but don't get me 
> wrong the integration of a parameterized message into the message above 
> is not trivial.  

Yep.

> Theoretical Computer Science discussions are titillating, but this is 
> engineering.  If we go off and create a whole new exception hierarchy, 
> we will have a massive learning curve for new coders, and we will have 
> to come up with a hack to get our new hierarchy to play well with the 
> spec required exception handling system.  What I am saying is we get 
> Java and J2EE warts and all.

Strong agreement. My point was that minimizing the number of new 
checked exceptions in Geronimo should be considered. Their 
profileration (or not) is very much an engineering matter.

Bill de hÓra


Mime
View raw message