I'm wondering what the drawbacks are for using strings that are defined in the java files in Android code.
I like to use plain old Java strings for things that are not visible strings like e.g. names in XML documents that I'm parsing, or keys for bundles. Seems to be a good idea to just keep all those things in the java file where they are used instead of moving them out into an XML file and making the code more complicated.
Yet, I see many examples of Android code that seem to put every string into a resource file.
What's the issue with having strings in java files? What are the reasons that people don't do it? I've been doing it in my apps and haven't seen any issues yet so far.
Note that I'm aware that XML files make a ton of sense for stuff that needs to be translated. This question is for cases where the strings stay the same.
Let me try to make this question clearer:
Are there any reasons except:
Because it's a standard / best practise etc. - my question is basically: why is it a best practise, only because of i8n, or are there other reasons?
Because it allows you to use the resources framework for translation, device-dependent strings etc.
Because it allows you to use non-ASCII characters.
The simple answer to your question is its a standard to put all your string into resource. Also there are many reason that if you are keeping your string in xml/java file you have to update each and every reference in these file for a single string.
for eg. if You want to change "Ok" to "confirm" which are used in 5 different file you have to change in all those 5 files but for String resource you just have to update one file which string.xml.
Edit
Please find below some of reasons we should use String.xml
1) To update single reference to multiple occurrences. As according to the #treesAreEverywhere It can be done with public static String, but it will take memory on startup of application and till application is closed. But String written in String.xml will be loaded at time of use.
2) Multiple language support. You can create multiple language resource folder to support your multiple language application so language changed using Locale will be dynamically maintained by OS at run time according to language resource folder.
3) Please check Localization document which provide you more information about using string.xml
4) Strings don’t clutter up your application code, leaving it clear and easy to maintain.
It's a kind of coding standard like any other language has. But you can ignore it if you want and can create your code with public static string variable in code. It is not compulsory to use string.xml but its a good coding practice to use it. Good practice like closing the if block with parenthesis containing single statement rather than leaving it as it is.
if(condition){ statement; } rather than if(condition) statement;
Actually, good practices is a good reason to do it, but there are more.
For example, one reason that I can recall right now is that strings.xml is UTF-8 codified. Hardcoded strings doesn't show some characters properly.
The purpose of strings.xml (and other *.xml resource files) is to regroup similar values in one place. This facilitates finding values that would be otherwise buried in the code. Those resource files also makes the maintainability better, since a modification to one value can have app-wide effects (such as changing the title of the app or the theme). Finally, as you mentioned, it provides a framework for translating your app to other languages.
If you know your app will not be translated and won't be modified, it's not a bad thing to hard-code them. However, if you think your app will get a lot of updates, it is better to start using good foundations and use XML resource files.
Besides these reasons and the ones mentioned by #Zinc (which I am unaware of and cannot confirm), there are no other reasons regarding why you would want to use XML resource files.
The drawback of using resource files is that is is theoretically is slower and requires a bit more memory. Read android - strings.xml vs static constants and Does hard coding of string affect performance?
If you put all your strings which are related to your application, then you can implement I18N kind of applications very easily and it is very useful while doing application changes (Company takeover some other company). It is just change names in xml files. No need to touch any java file.
How do I avoid (some) of my string resources getting localized?
Sometimes I need the same string multiple places. For instance when defining a preference I need the preference key both in my preferences.xml and in my java code in order to get the preference value. Either I can manually define the key twice (which I do now) but I feel that my list of keys is getting large and error prone.
I could also define the key in my strins.xml but then I fear it will get translated (sooner or later (by mistake?)). I fear this could cause problems to have the same preference value store multiple times with different keys. What if the user changes language and all the settings got reset?
Is there a way to define a string - accessible both in code and xml - which will not get translated as a part of the localization process?
In general, if you provide the string only in your default strings.xml it will appear the same on all locales. In addition you can use the "translatable" attribute which will tell Lint that this string is not designed to be translated, and will serve for documentation purposes.
Just use translatable=false. And I suggest putting your preferences keys to separate resource file as it would be easier to manage.
<string name="Key" translatable="false">my key</string>
I've taken a look at the following post to grasp a basic idea of how to deal with I18N:
Where to place i18n key strings in Java
But more than that, I have an intention of automatically generating a Java class with constants storing key strings of I18n property files. I know it could be feasibly done using Java itself, however, I wonder which is the best approach (using Ant, Batch or something else...)?
The best approach is to give the identifiers yourself.
The ID can give hint to the translator what the string is about.
In fact, some consistency in naming convention is best:
dialog.print.title = Print
menu.file.print = Print
The two entries have to be translated differently in some languages (for instance in French it would be "Imprimer" for a button and "Impression" for a label / title).
Think it it this way: would you like to maintain some code where all variable names are machine generated?
In the thread What’s your favorite “programmer ignorance” pet peeve?, the following answer appears, with a large amount of upvotes:
Programmers who build XML using string concatenation.
My question is, why is building XML via string concatenation (such as a StringBuilder in C#) bad?
I've done this several times in the past, as it's sometimes the quickest way for me to get from point A to point B when to comes to the data structures/objects I'm working with. So far, I have come up with a few reasons why this isn't the greatest approach, but is there something I'm overlooking? Why should this be avoided?
Probably the biggest reason I can think of is you need to escape your strings manually, and most new programmers (and even some experienced programmers) will forget this. It will work great for them when they test it, but then "randomly" their apps will fail when someone throws an & symbol in their input somewhere. Ok, I'll buy this, but it's really easy to prevent the problem (SecurityElement.Escape to name one).
When I do this, I usually omit the XML declaration (i.e. <?xml version="1.0"?>). Is this harmful?
Performance penalties? If you stick with proper string concatenation (i.e. StringBuilder), is this anything to be concerned about? Presumably, a class like XmlWriter will also need to do a bit of string manipulation...
There are more elegant ways of generating XML, such as using XmlSerializer to automatically serialize/deserialize your classes. Ok sure, I agree. C# has a ton of useful classes for this, but sometimes I don't want to make a class for something really quick, like writing out a log file or something. Is this just me being lazy? If I am doing something "real" this is my preferred approach for dealing w/ XML.
You can end up with invalid XML, but you will not find out until you parse it again - and then it is too late. I learned this the hard way.
I think readability, flexibility and scalability are important factors. Consider the following piece of Linq-to-Xml:
XDocument doc = new XDocument(new XDeclaration("1.0","UTF-8","yes"),
new XElement("products", from p in collection
select new XElement("product",
new XAttribute("guid", p.ProductId),
new XAttribute("title", p.Title),
new XAttribute("version", p.Version))));
Can you find a way to do it easier than this? I can output it to a browser, save it to a document, add attributes/elements in seconds and so on ... just by adding couple lines of code. I can do practically everything with it without much of effort.
Actually, I find the biggest problem with string concatenation is not getting it right the first time, but rather keeping it right during code maintenance. All too often, a perfectly-written piece of XML using string concat is updated to meet a new requirement, and string concat code is just too brittle.
As long as the alternatives were XML serialization and XmlDocument, I could see the simplicity argument in favor of string concat. However, ever since XDocument et. al., there is just no reason to use string concat to build XML anymore. See Sander's answer for the best way to write XML.
Another benefit of XDocument is that XML is actually a rather complex standard, and most programmers simply do not understand it. I'm currently dealing with a person who sends me "XML", complete with unquoted attribute values, missing end tags, improper case sensitivity, and incorrect escaping. But because IE accepts it (as HTML), it must be right! Sigh... Anyway, the point is that string concatenation lets you write anything, but XDocument will force standards-complying XML.
I wrote a blog entry back in 2006 moaning about XML generated by string concatenation; the simple point is that if an XML document fails to validate (encoding issues, namespace issues and so on) it is not XML and cannot be treated as such.
I have seen multiple problems with XML documents that can be directly attributed to generating XML documents by hand using string concatenation, and nearly always around the correct use of encoding.
Ask yourself this; what character set am I currently encoding my document with ('ascii7', 'ibm850', 'iso-8859-1' etc)? What will happen if I write a UTF-16 string value into an XML document that has been manually declared as 'ibm850'?
Given the richness of the XML support in .NET with XmlDocument and now especially with XDocument, there would have to be a seriously compelling argument for not using these libraries over basic string concatenation IMHO.
I think that the problem is that you aren't watching the xml file as a logical data storage thing, but as a simple textfile where you write strings.
It's obvious that those libraries do string manipulation for you, but reading/writing xml should be something similar to saving datas into a database or something logically similar
If you need trivial XML then it's fine. Its just the maintainability of string concatenation breaks down when the xml becomes larger or more complex. You pay either at development or at maintenance time. The choice is yours always - but history suggests the maintenance is always more costly and thus anything that makes it easier is worthwhile generally.
You need to escape your strings manually. That's right. But is that all? Sure, you can put the XML spec on your desk and double-check every time that you've considered every possible corner-case when you're building an XML string. Or you can use a library that encapsulates this knowledge...
Another point against using string concatenation is that the hierarchical structure of the data is not clear when reading the code. In #Sander's example of Linq-to-XML for example, it's clear to what parent element the "product" element belongs, to what element the "title" attribute applies, etc.
As you said, it's just awkward to build XML correct using string concatenation, especially now you have XML linq that allows for simple construction of an XML graph and will get namespaces, etc correct.
Obviously context and how it is being used matters, such as in the logging example string.Format can be perfectly acceptable.
But too often people ignore these alternatives when working with complex XML graphs and just use a StringBuilder.
The main reason is DRY: Don't Repeat Yourself.
If you use string concat to do XML, you will constantly be repeating the functions that keep your string as a valid XML document. All the validation would be repeated, or not present. Better to rely on a class that is written with XML validation included.
I've always found creating an XML to be more of a chore than reading in one. I've never gotten the hang of serialization - it never seems to work for my classes - and instead of spending a week trying to get it to work, I can create an XML file using strings in a mere fraction of the time and write it out.
And then I load it in using an XMLReader tree. And if the XML file doesn't read as valid, I go back and find the problem within my saving routines and corret it. But until I get a working save/load system, I refuse to perform mission-critical work until I know my tools are solid.
I guess it comes down to programmer preference. Sure, there are different ways of doing things, for sure, but for developing/testing/researching/debugging, this would be fine. However I would also clean up my code and comment it before handing it off to another programmer.
Because regardless of the fact you're using StringBuilder or XMLNodes to save/read your file, if it is all gibberish mess, nobody is going to understand how it works.
Maybe it won't ever happen, but what if your environment switches to XML 2.0 someday? Your string-concatenated XML may or may not be valid in the new environment, but XDocument will almost certainly do the right thing.
Okay, that's a reach, but especially if your not-quite-standards-compliant XML doesn't specify an XML version declaration... just saying.
I have a Java based web-application and a new requirement to allow Users to place variables into text fields that are replaced when a document or other output is produced. How have others gone about this?
I was thinking of having a pre-defined set of variables such as :
#BOOKING_NUMBER#
#INVOICE_NUMBER#
Then when a user enters some text they can specify a variable inline (select it from a modal or similar). For example:
"This is some text for Booking #BOOKING_NUMBER# that is needed by me"
When producing some output (eg. PDF) that uses this text, I would do a regex and find all variables and replace them with the correct value:
"This is some text for Booking 10001 that is needed by me"
My initial thought was something like Freemarker but I think that is too complex for my Users and would require them to know my DataModel (eww).
Thanks for reading!
D.
Have a look at java.text.MessageFormat - particularly the format method - as this is designed for exactly what you are looking for.
i.e.
MessageFormat.format("This is some text for booking {0} that is needed by me, for use with invoice {1}", bookingNumber, invoiceNumber);
You may even want to get the template text from a resource bundle, to allow for support of multiple languages, with the added ability to cope with the fact that {0} and {1} may appear in a different order in some languages.
UPDATE:
I just read your original post properly, and noticed the comment about the PDF.
This suggest that the template text is going to be significantly larger than a line or two.
In such cases, you may want to explore something like StringTemplate which seems better suited for this purpose - this comment is based solely on initial investigations, as I've not used it in anger.
I have used a similiar replacement token system before. I personally like something like.
[MYVALUE]
As it is easy for the user to type, and then I just use replacements to swap out the tokens for the real data.