[jsword-devel] monster check-in
joe at eireneh.com
Sun Jun 13 09:43:55 MST 2004
>> 2 parts I've not checked-in are i18n field names and i18n case
>> I'd like to have a quick debate about the first (separate mail -
>> probably tomorrow)
The question is 3 fold. Style, Scope and Positioning
Style: The resource names are LIKE_CONSTANTS because I wrote a couple of
vi macros to do the work and only going that far made things easy.
However by including the class name in the lookup where resources are
package scoped we have a mix of scopings. And on the scope front ...
Scope: We have a growing number of resource files, some are class based
(settings files, ActionFactory files) and some are package based (Msg
resource files). For ease of translation, application based might be
easier. For ease of maintenance class based would be easier.
Which should we tend towards? My gut reaction is to have them class
based, we could easily write a tool to help with translation, but a tool
to help with maintenance is less obvious. But I'm not sure that this
goes as far as Msg files, if we split those up we would have zillions of
resource files rather than trillions. Which brings be to positioning ...
Positioning: The resource files were originally stored in a separate
directory because we didn't have CWClassLoader and wanted to be able to
override resource files with files placed in ~/.jsword. Now that we have
a cool ClassLoader maybe we should move the resource files into the java
source tree, and have them properly package/directory based rather than
package/filename based as at the moment?
>> There where several places where you had changed i18n to I18N, was
>> this to fire off an eclipse task tag or a side effect of something
>> else, or on a point of order?
> It was to remove it as being listed as an eclipse task tag.
Fine - so it was intentional, I'll check it in.
More information about the jsword-devel