RE: [sdd] Language_bundle

[Julia McCarthy <julia@us.ibm.com>]

I agree with James' suggestion also. But I'm not sure about the suggestion that this is a best practice. Do we really want to leave interoperability wrt translations in the descriptor up to adoption of a best practice? Or do we document that this is how language_bundle MUST be used?

Julia McCarthy
Tivoli Development
Deployment Engine Design
julia@us.ibm.com
349/8156
877-261-0391



"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>

"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>

06/15/2006 01:47 PM

To	<sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [sdd] Language_bundle

I agree.

Regards,
Debra

---

From: Randy George [mailto:randyg@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:20 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [sdd] Language_bundle

James, 
  I think that the current definition can provide this, i.e. it is a token.  This token provides a base name which some "best practice" can be used to extend to language specific bundles.  I think that is it a good idea to follow the JRE approach.   If you agree, we just need to spec how this token should be used vs. changing the schema. 

Regards,
Randy George

Senior Technical Staff Member
Provisioning Architecture
Tivoli Software, IBM Software Group
Austin, TX  
(512) 838-0752     T/L 678-0752

James Falkner <james.falkner@sun.com>

06/15/2006 12:00 PM

To	Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [sdd] Language_bundle

How about the "language_bundle" attribute identifies a _basename_,
to which locale names are added as suffixes in a well-known strategy. For
example, if you specify "foo" as the basename, and you are running in the
ja_JA locale with utf8 encoding, then runtimes would know to look for

foo_ja_JA.utf8
foo_ja_JA
foo_ja
foo_en
foo

Just like how Sun's Java runtime environment looks up ResourceBundles.

-jhf-

Julia McCarthy wrote:
> Let's try to make some progress before next meeting.
>
> Issue #8 - Can there be more than one Language bundle for the descriptor?
>
> Here's the text on this issue copied from Debra's email of 6/6.
> Item #8 Even though the language bundles may be really small for the
> descriptor, I think that it is worthwhile to simple define a common
> mechanism for handling multiple language bundles. My experience is that
> translations take place very asynchronously, and that trying to fuse,
> merge and manage a single bundle can be error prone.
>
> This makes sense to me. Does anyone think this is a /bad / idea? Can
> someone suggest a schema change that would support this? The current
> schema looks like this:
>
> <attributeGroup name="DescriptorInfo">
> <attribute name="schemaVersion" type="vsn:VersionString" fixed="1.0"
> use="required" />
> <attribute name="descriptorID" type="descriptInfo:UUID" use="optional"/>
> <attributeGroup ref="id:BuildInfo"/>
> <attribute name="size" type="integer" use="optional"/>
> <attribute name="language_bundle" type="token" use="optional"
> default="sddBundle"/>
> </attributeGroup>
>
>
> Julia McCarthy
> Tivoli Development
> Deployment Engine Design
> julia@us.ibm.com
> 349/8156
> 877-261-0391
>
>