i18n messages are the least o four worries now. Lets get some code and
deal with this later.
--jason
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
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
