Are you sure that none of the tools are using the Message class directly?
The message class still seems to be good modularity to me. I'm +1 on
the new constructors, all the same.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Christian Schneider
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would propose to add the following to UncheckedException and corresponding
> "super" calls to all exceptions.
>
> public UncheckedException(String code, ResourceBundle bundle,
> Object...params) {
> this(new Message(code, bundle, params));
> }
> public UncheckedException(String code, Throwable t, ResourceBundle
> bundle, Object...params) {
> this(new Message(code, bundle, params), t);
> }
>
> To use these you could do the following at the start of the class:
> static final Logger LOG = LogUtils.getL7dLogger(JMSConfigFeature.class);
> static final ResourceBundle BUNDLE = LOG.getResourceBundle();
>
> and then:
> throw new ConfigurationException("JMSCONFIGFEATURE_ONLY_JMS", BUNDLE);
>
> I have checked where the i18n Message is used and it seems only to be used
> for exceptions. So would it perhaps make sense to deprecate it and always
> create exceptions like above?
> Was there a special reason for the introduction of i18n Message?
> Any opinions?
>
> Greetings
>
> Christian
>
>
> Benson Margulies schrieb:
>>
>> I'm +1 to the constructor. I find the new-ing of messages to be a pain.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Christian Schneider
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Christian Schneider
> ---
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
>
