Reminder: i18n strawman

[Michal Cierniak]

I also think that this would not be too burdensome.

On 5/16/07, Bryan Atsatt <bryan.atsatt at oracle.com> wrote:
> ListResourceBundle cannot be demoted to second-class citizen status in
> the module system (Perhaps you haven't seen my earlier response?).
>
> There is a solution to the split package problem, and, while it does
> change the development model slightly, I think that is in line with the
> more significant model change of moving to a module system...
>
> Introduce a package naming convention for resource bundles deployed as
> modules. The convention would allow ResourceBundle.getBundle() to easily
> map from the "base" name to the actual bundle package name.
>
> For example, if we introduce the convention that resource bundle "base"
> names are mapped such that "resources" is appended to the package name,
> then calling ResourceBundle.getBundle with:
>
>    "com.acme.MyResources"
>
> Would actually search for resources with the base name:
>
>    "com.acme.resources.MyResources"
>
> thus sidestepping the split package issue.
>
> Yes, this requires developers to actually define their resources using
> this naming convention, but I don't see that as a significant burden.
> Especially when you consider the benefit of not having to package all
> translations in the primary module.
>
> To avoid potential package name collisions, we should consider using a
> more distinct name than simply "resources", e.g.:
>
>    "com.acme.resource_bundle.MyResources"
>    "com.acme.module_resources.MyResources"
>    "com.acme._resources_.MyResources"
>
> // Bryan