geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: [i18n] Hardcoded message strings
Date Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:19:10 GMT
i18n messages are the least o four worries now.  Lets get some code and 
deal with this later.


On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 11:51  PM, James Strachan wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 05:26  pm, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> 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.
> I don't see how encouraging developers to hide exception messages 
> inside Exception classes rather than litter them through the 
> application code  makes development tedious or is particularly much 
> effort. It'll help us provide consistent exception codes or add i18n 
> later on with minimal refactoring overhead.
>> 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.
> However I concur that we should not be too strict on coding rules to 
> start with - we need lots of code writing & don't wanna put folks off 
> by being too religious about code conventions. Indeed we should be 
> focussing on ensuring the core container, component model & deployer 
> architecture is right so we can start filling in the J2EE stack rather 
> than worrying too much about the exact layout of the code - we can 
> refactor later.
> James
> -------

View raw message