Rob and Craig, Not a problem, I already had a Resource interface I wanted to use a while back, but nobody responded to an email about it so I assumed that it was a no-go, I'd much rather do it that way. -----Original Message----- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:33 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: [Resources] Changes to MessageResources Is it reasonable to create a Resources abstraction as you suggest, and still keep MessageResources as a specialized implementation of it (after refactoring)? In other words, Resources would only have getData(), but MessageResources would extend Resources and add the getMessage() methods. Besides supporting backwards compatibility for Struts users :-), the formatting stuff performed by MessageResources is pretty useful in its own right. Craig On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, SCHACHTER,MICHAEL (HP-NewJersey,ex2) wrote: > I would like to commit the following changes to MessageResources, > if accepted: > > 1) Change the name of the MessageResources class to "Resource", > signifying that the implementations have the potential to > return more than just a short message String. This would also > include changing the name of MessageResourcesFactory to just > ResourceFactory. > > 2) Change the getMessage(xxx) methods to getData(xxx), and add > matching getDataStream(xxx) methods that return an InputStream as > opposed to a String > > Of course I'd also change the rest of the Resource package classes > to match the changes above so everything builds. >
RE: [Resources] Changes to MessageResources
SCHACHTER,MICHAEL (HP-NewJersey,ex2) Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:21:51 -0700
- [Resources] Changes to MessageResourc... SCHACHTER,MICHAEL (HP-NewJersey,ex2)
- Re: [Resources] Changes to Messa... Jason van Zyl
- Re: [Resources] Changes to Messa... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: [Resources] Changes to M... Geir Magnusson Jr.
- Re: [Resources] Changes to Messa... Leland, Rob
- SCHACHTER,MICHAEL (HP-NewJersey,ex2)