On 08/04/2016 11:21 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
If the providing module declares the service type, then the consuming
module will have an explicit dependency on the providing module, which
also defeats the purpose of service provider's implicit coupling.
I take this back. The service type is resolved at runtime by the
ResourceBundle code using the consumer module's class loader and then
ResourceBundleProvider interface is used to invoke its method. But I
still think that the "baseName" parameter to this method is superfluous.
I also see now that using resource bundle service providers is necessary
if one wants to provide different modules for different languages
covering a set of bundles - each language in its own module. Normally,
for "java.class" format bundles, this would require per-language classes
to be split among multiple modules and this is not possible as split
packages are prohibited. With ResourceBundleProvider approach one can
defined a ResourceBundleProvider service type in say "main language"
module together with a default implementation and then various language
implementations each in its own module with own package(s). For example:
module consumer {
uses my.BundleProvider;
}
// containing:
package consumer;
public class Main {
public static void main(String ... args) {
ResourceBundle.getBundle("my.Bundle", Locale.getDefault());
}
}
module my.bundle {
exports my;
provides my.BundleProvider with my.bundle.Bundle.Provider;
}
// containing:
package my;
public interface BundleProvider extends
java.util.spi.ResourceBundleProvider {}
module my.bundle.en {
requires my.bundle;
provides my.BundleProvider with my.bundle.en.Bundle.Provider;
}
module my.bundle.de {
requires my.bundle;
provides my.BundleProvider with my.bundle.de.Bundle.Provider;
}
etc...
Regards, Peter
