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:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I have included a first exception. It looks like this:
>
> org.apache.cxf.common.i18n.Message msg = new
> org.apache.cxf.common.i18n.Message("INSUFFICIENT_CONFIGURATION_CONDUIT",
> LOG, name);
> throw new ConfigurationException(msg);
>
> This looks extremly ugly as Message is already imported either as a CXF
> message or a JMS message. It will be even uglier when the code formatter has
> done its work.
>
> Is it necessary that the Message is built with new? Can´t we simply do
> something like this:
> throw new ConfigurationException("INSUFFICIENT_CONFIGURATION_CONDUIT", LOG,
> name);
>
> We could add this Constructor to UncheckedException.
>
> Greetings
>
> Christian
>
>
> Daniel Kulp schrieb:
>
>> I'd definitely prefer if the excpetion was on of the I18N things. A
>> LARGE chunk of our users are actually from China. According to google
>> analytics, China is #2 after the US. It's definitely important to keep the
>> option open to make this stuff localizable. ESPECIALLY for configuration
>> things where a non-developer might need to make changes. More "admin" like
>> tasks.
>> Note: if you have a Logger, you already have the bundle. The i18n
>> message can take the Logger instead of the bundle.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Christian Schneider
> ---
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
>
