> But what if there would not be just one message
> but instead one message (selected at runtime)
> out of a possible number of messages.
Can you show me use case of this?
> The view would then have to either [1] select
> the localized message at runtime or [2]
> include every possible message at compiletime
> and display one of them based on some property
> returned at runtime.
No it doesn't, I can write code like this:
#if (${errors.username})
@error.username@
#else
@welcome@ $!{user.name}
#end
Then the right message is selected at runtime. No resource bundle
lookups.
> And [2] - if I realize correctly - is just like [1],
> it would still require some ResourceBundle-like
> functionality (which ofcourse could be implemented
> using Velocity macros).
#err and #msg macros are only intended to provide string replacements,
of cource I can write dynamic replacements also (based on locale and
text in resource bundle):
#msg("@text.with.replacements@", ["@welcome@"])
And resource bundle would then look like this:
@[EMAIL PROTECTED] welcome message
@[EMAIL PROTECTED] is {1}
And it would render:
This is a welcome message
and with finnish bundle:
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@[EMAIL PROTECTED] on {1}
it would render:
T�m� on tervetuloviesti
All those @...@ are replaced with ant replace task in build time and
site is generated for each resource bundle e.g.:
fi/index.vm
en/index.vm
And the correct template is chosen in runtime with maverick's shunting.
> Anyway, it's not really a problem, just something
> I was thinking about > since your "build-time" approach
> looks interesting enough to consider.
Do you still see problems with this?
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Aapo Laakkonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:54 PM
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: RE: [Mav-user] I18n/l10n
> At the moment, I use a combination of (1) and (2).
> A disadvantage of (4) - if I see it correctly -
> is that I create messages at runtime (f.e. validation
> error messages) and it would be more complicated in
> the view if I had to create them at compiletime.
Yes, but as I see those validation messages come from resource bundles?
So that makes me wondering how would it make it more complicated.
Here is example what I'm thinking (in velocity):
<html>
<head><title>@title@</title></head>
<body>
<h1>@welcome.message@</h1>
<p>
#if (${errors.message})
#err("@error.message@", ["$!{user.name}"])
#else
#msg("@user.details@"), ["$!{user.name}", "$!{user.age}"]); #end
</p> </body> </html>
And here is the resource bundle:
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@[EMAIL PROTECTED] {1} was not found in db.
@[EMAIL PROTECTED] {1}, it seems that your are getting older, {2} years
behind and counting.
#err and #msg are velocity macros that do parameter replaces. As you
see, the static messages are translated build-time and parameter
replacing happens in runtime.
Another possibility would be to write #evel macro and then everything
looks like this:
<html>
<head><title>@title@</title></head>
<body>
<h1>@welcome.message@</h1>
<p>
#if (${errors.message})
#eval("@error.message@")
#else
#eval("@user.details@");
#end
</p>
</body>
</html>
And resource bundle looks like this:
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@[EMAIL PROTECTED] $!{user.name} was not found in db.
@[EMAIL PROTECTED] $!{user.name}, it seems that your are getting older,
$!{user.age} years behind and counting.
What do you think?
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
[INVALID FOOTER]
