On 10/26/14, 3:12 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> This has come up before, but I'll ask again do they really need to be >>in 3 places? Can we at least reduct it to 2 or even 1? > >How about generating the 3 places from one "true" source that way they >can't get out of sync etc etc It might be possible to get to two. I’m not sure it makes sense to make it 1 since the Installer really should be a separate project with its own strings. The factors for the current situation is: 1) We want the Ant script used by Linux users (and anyone else who can’t or won’t use AIR) to be localizable, and the easiest way to do that is with Ant .properties files. Yes, Ant can read XML, but it is a bit more painful, and anyone editing has to validate the XML. So most of the strings are in .properties files. 2) The simplest thing to do was to package everything (installer.xml and its .properties files) into the binary package so the Ant user could get everything they need in one download. 3) The Installer wouldn’t want to download the binaries and unpack them to get strings for licenses and options, so we broke that out into a separate file. 4) It made sense to make that file XML because it organizes the strings with the steps, licenses, and options. Now we have since discussed breaking out the installer.xml from the packages, and in 4.13, we did add a fetch to the website for additional properties files, so in future install scripts, we could look at reorganizing the strings such that A) they are all in one file or B) as you suggested, the build scripts breaks them up into two. It certainly doesn’t have to stay the way it is. I’d be interested to hear from Linux users if there are objection to having the Ant script go out to the network to get its strings. -Alex
