+1.
-Kin-man
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 10:12, Ed Burns wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:07:46 -0700, Ed Burns <ed.burns_at_sun.com> said:
>
> EB> Ken Paulsen wrote:
> KP> You may want to consider simplifying the API by having "ELException"
> KP> utilize the ELUtil class. Then you could just pass in the key:
> KP> "setPropertyFailed" and the object[].
> KP>
> KP> Also, I would think developers may want to customize these messages.
> KP> Do you have a mechanism for doing this? Perhaps a ResourceBundleFactory?
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:24:24 -0500, Jacob Hookom <jacob_at_hookom.net> said:
>
> JH> I would keep it simple, ELException is public so unless you make ELUtil
> JH> public too, I wouldn't extend that dependency. And I don't recommend
> JH> making ELUtil public.
>
> EB> Yes, ELUtil was intended to be an impl private class. I definately
> EB> don't want to make it public. I'd leave the message customizing to the
> EB> layer on top of EL, in this case JSP or JSF.
>
> After getting approval from the webtier EG, I am ready to check this
> in. Can Kin-Man please review the EL portions of the version 2
> change-bundle attached to this bug?
>
> https://javaserverfaces.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=167
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed