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.
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'm remote debugging a Java application and (not for the first time) I find myself looking for a value without knowing what variable might hold it (if any at all). This is especially hard to find since I'm stepping through library code rather than my own code, so I was wondering; since eclipse can display the variables currently available on the stack, along with all contained values, is there any way I can search these? Or at the very least dump it out as text somewhere and grep it or something.
I usually do an export to JSON using Jackson's ObjectMapper whenever I find myself into the situation of having to search among a bunch of values caught while debugging. On breakpoint hit, let's say I want to search some string inside a text representation of myObj, which could be some messy POJO deep with nested objects. Just evaluate the following:
org.codehaus.jackson.map.ObjectMapper mapper = new org.codehaus.jackson.map.ObjectMapper();
mapper.writeValue(new java.io.File("/tmp/myObj.json"), myObj);
and then go grep your value inside the file you just created.
YMMV: if you have no idea where to start the search you'll have to iterate through what's available on the stack. Also the JSON representation might not be suitable for every kind of search.
I'm not sure about the feature you are asking for but there is another approach you could take. Assuming you know the general area AND the object you are looking for isn't too common, eclipse supports conditional breakpoints so you could set breakpoints on the end of methods chechking the method variables and object state.
You could try evars. I haven't tried the search function, but it allows expanding and exporting all the variables on the stack to a file, which you can then grep for your value. I installed the latest version into Eclipse manually, i.e. putting the jar in the dropins/plugins directory. Worked for me on Eclipse 3.6.1.
Ok, so coming from a background of mostly perl, and mostly writing dirty little apps to automate my tasks, I've read the pages about the evils of eval(), and I always use a hash (in perl). I'm currently working on a little project (mostly for me and a couple of other technical people at work), for creating "canned response" e-mails. To allow for additions, subtractions, edits, etc., I'd like to essentially describe the response form(s) in XML, and have my app parse the XML and create the response forms at runtime. I want to use Java (to integrate it into an existing Java tool that I created), and boiled down to a trivial example, what I'm trying to do is take some XML like:
<Form Name="first" Title="Title!">
<Label Name="before">Your Request:</Label>
<Textbox Name="input"/>
<Label Name="after">has been completed.</Label>
<Output>%before%%input%%after%</Output>
</Form>
<Form Name="second">
...
and from parsing that, I want to create a JFrame named first, which contains a JLabel named before with the obvious text, then a textbox, then another JLabel... you get the idea (I eventually want to use the output tag to control exactly how the response is formatted).
I can parse the XML, and get the element name and such, but I don't know how to instantiate the Objects with a name that is the value of a variable, effectively:
JFrame $(thisNode.getAttributes().getNamedItem("Name").getNodeValue()) = new JFrame(thisNode.getAttributes().getNamedItem("Title").getNodeValue());
I've read basically the whole first page of google results on java reflection, but I haven't come across anyone doing quite what I'm looking for (at least not that I could tell). Having basically zero experience with reflection, I'm curious if this is something that can be accomplished using it, or if I should take the same approach as I would in Perl, and create a HashMap or HashTable of Objects, and tie them to a entry in a Hash of JFrames. Or, I'm open to ideas that don't fall into those two categories. The Hash is sort of my stand-by answer, because I've done it in Perl plenty of times, and I'm sure I can make it work in Java, but if there's a feature (like reflection) that's made to do this task, then why not do it the way it was intended to be done?
What you're asking isn't possible in Java. It doesn't work that way and these sorts of tricks, which are common in dynamic languages, aren't the Java way. You can certainly do:
JFrame frame = JFrameBuilder.buildFromTemplate("frame.xml");
where you create a JFrameBuilder class that reads the XML and creates an object from it but the variable name can't be dynamic. You have to remember that there are two steps in Java.
Java source files are compiled into bytecode;
The bytecode is read by a Java interpreter (JVM) and executed.
What you want is essentially asking to execute code in step (1). Now annotations can do things in a compile step (like adding interfaces, implementing methods and so on) but local variable naming is not one of those things.
You could (not necessarily that you should) generate Java source based on your XML, compile the generated code, and finally, execute the compiled code. This could be more efficient if you saved the generated .class files and reused them instead of parsing the XML every time the program is run (it can check the timestamp on the XML and only generate and compile if it's been modified since the last code generation).