I know that to internationalize an iPhone app, you create a "strings" file in Interface Builder and set the different kinds of strings that will be displayed in your app. However, this is much easier to do starting from the outset than if you want to internationalize an already-coded, mostly-finished app. Besides the obvious hurdle of actually translating all of the text in your app, what are the best strategies for actually going about internationalizing your app when it is already created, with wacky text-modifying code and all built into the app using Objective-C functions?
The search in project function can make you save a lot of time...
I search #"" in the project and replace every occurrence with NSLocalizedString().
To save even more time:
Add the comment "// Do not localize" at the end of line of code to leave strings as is
The first parameter of NSLocalizedString should give as many details as possible. For example I use: BUTTON-ACTION-PRINT-VERB-10CHARS to indicate: user interface element type, is it a verb or a noun, the action and space available (in multiple of capital W letter).
Leave as nil the last parameter of NSLocalizedString - it's not useful
Add a comment before each string in the string file to explain context
Eliminate all the text-modifying code with formatted strings (%# %i %f)
It's the simplest way to proceed, and once it's done you can add languages with no effort!
Good luck,
rjobidon
Related
Roald has written an excellent guide for the Twincat Eventlogger.
https://roald87.github.io/twincat/2020/11/03/twincat-eventlogger-plc-part.html
https://roald87.github.io/twincat/2021/01/20/twincat-eventlogger-hmi-part.html
For us this is exactly what we want, there is however 1 thing I haven't figured out. How to get the sourcename of the alarm in multiple languages in the HMI. params::sourceName gives the path in the software (example: MAIN.fbConveyor1.Cylinder1) This path can be customized when initializing the alarm (as Roald has shown). This doesn't work in my case, since I would like to define a generic alarm (example: "Cilinder not retracted within maximum time") that is instantiated multiple times.
I was thinking of using the source as a way to show the operator where the alarm occurs. We use this way (path) already for saving machine settings among other things. The machines we build are installed all over the world, so multilanguage is a must.
Beckhoff does support multilanguage alarm names (when defined), but the source is not defined, but dynamically generated.
Anyone have an idea how this problem can be solved?
If I understand your question correctly, then being able to parameterize the event text with information of the source of the problem should help you out.
If you define the event text as Cylinder {0} has not retracted in time. then you can add the arguments of that text during runtime.
IF bRaiseAlarm THEN
bRaiseAlarm := FALSE;
fbAlarm.ipArguments.Clear().AddString('Alice');
fbAlarm.Raise(0);
END_IF
However, since this also stated in the articles you mentioned, I am unsure if this would solve your problem.
'Alice' in this example, can be hard to localize. The following options come to my mind.
The string can be based on an ENUM. Enums can have textlist support, so if you add your translations there, that should allow multilingual output. However... this does require a lot of setup, placing translations inside your code, and making sure the PLC application is aware of the language that the parameter should use.
Use tags to mark the source device, as tags can be language invariant. It is not the most user-friendly method, but it could work for you. It would become something like: "Cylinder 'AA.1123' did not retract in time.". 'AA.1123' as a tag would have to be stored inside your PLC code as a string. You will have to trust that your operator can relate the tag back to the actual source.
Hopefully, this helped, or else please help me understand the problem better.
I'm doing some competitions on a website called topcoder.com where the objective is to solve algorithmic problems. I'm using Eclipse for this purpose, and I code in Java, it would be help me to have some predefined templates or macros that I can use for common coding tasks. For example I would like to write methods to be able to find the max value in and int[] array, or the longest sequence in an int[] array, and so on (there should be quite many of these). Note I can't write these methods as libraries because as part of the competition I need to submit everything in one file.
Therefore ideally, I would like to have some shortcut available to generate code both as a method and as a calling statement at once. Any ideas if this is possible?
Sure you can - I think that's a nifty way to auto-insert boilerplate or helper code. To the point of commenters, you probably want to group the code as a helper class, but the general idea sounds good to me:
You can see it listed in your available templates:
Then as you code your solution, you can Control+Space, type the first few characters of the name you gave your template, and you can preview it:
And then you can insert it. Be sure if you use a class structure to position it as an inner class:
Lastly - if you want to have a template inserts a call to method from a template, I think you would just use two templates. One like shown above (to print the helper code) and another that might look like this, which calls a util method and drops the cursor after it (or between the parentheses if you'd like, etc):
MyUtils.myUtilMethod1();${cursor}
Let's say i have a xml file with a tag named which contains the number of fields i want to show in my tableView and in another xml file i have the information to be displayed in that tableView.
The question is : Should i create 2 different file in my project (xmlparse1.h and .m + xmlparse2.h and .m) or should i just put all my code in 1 (xmlparse.h + .m) and differenciate which file i am parsing at the moment with a bool or something like that in the code?
I am developing an iphone app on Xcode 4.3 mac os x 10.7.4 if this might change
EDIT: 1st file :
<MenuPrin>
<humidite>82,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0</humidite>
<tempmoy>
189,124,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700,700
</tempmoy>
</MenuPrin>
2nd File :
<Instal>
<nbrField>2</nbrField>
</Instal>
So it looks like this. So, since nbrField is 2 I would take the 2 first value from tempMoy and humidite and show them in a tableView.
END OF EDIT
If how you're parsing is similar in both instances, to add two sets of files that do effectively the same thing would be extremely inefficient and considered bad practice. It makes a lot more sense to create a parser that can handle the two different files than to write two parsers that can only handle a specific file each.
To more specifically answer your question, I would determine which file you are parsing and behave accordingly, whether you do this with a bool or something else is up to you.
EDIT: Here is the idea that just popped into my head, so if for whatever reason this wont work for you(Like I said its been a while), or someone has a better idea, I'm all ears. You could still have a set of files(.h and .m) that contain the definition of your parser. Your parser could contain within it a two variables of type Object1 and Object2 which are built in such a way that they resemble the data structure that you need to store what you parse once for your first type of file, and a different definition for your second type of file. This way when parsing once you determine which file it is you are reading, it just changes which of these two objects you write into. There are also plenty of variations for how you could set this up, and I can also think of a few cases for what you might be trying to do where this might not work, but there is the idea regardless.
If you think that the two sets of files approach is better for the application you are trying to write and makes more sense to you, given what has been discussed in the comments, it isn't necessarily a bad idea.
In case if u want to create two table view in one view u need to create a single .h & .m file...If u want to create individual table view u need to create two .h & .m...
Try TBXML parser...that is the easiest way and less memory usage for xmlparsing...
A week or two ago I just started using Zend Framework seriously and have had trouble escaping manually with Zend_View::escape().
Does anyone knows how to escape vars in templates (Zend_View templates) automatically without using $this->escape(), or any other tricky ways like output buffering and PREG replacing *.phtml files.
I'd like to know the best practice in this case.
You can extend Zend_View to create a custom view class which autoescapes things, or you can use a view helper to turn autoescaping on/off.
I have written a blogpost about it, with example code for both approaches:
How to automatically escape template variables in Zend_View
Over at the PiKe project we build a custom stream wrapper that automatically escapes all view variables, with a MINIMAL performance hit! You can still get the RAW value with:
<?=~ $variable ?>
Notice the "~" character. Checkout http://code.google.com/p/php-pike/wiki/Pike_View_Stream
I know you said that you want to avoid "tricky ways like output buffering and PREG replacing *.phtml files.", but I still think it's a very neat way to fix auto escaping in Zend Framework 1.
You said "automatically", so I believe that that means when you do echo $this->var; you want it escaped. Well, if that's the case, maybe you could do the escaping when the variable is set to the view. AFAIK it's done in the Zend_View_Abstract class' __set magic method* (around line 300). Changing the core ZF code is not recommended, so you could go by extending Z_V_A or Z_V and just override the __set method.
*I'm not 100% sure that Z_V_A::__set is the only place where the params are assigned to the view, but I think it should be. Can't think of any other place for that.
Edit: Personally, I'd avoid this and just stick with the good ol' $this->escape(). More typing but less magic going on in the background.
You have asked for best practice then what you are doing is already it.
Wait till when you want to display your data before modifying it only for output reasons.
I understand you find writting ->escape() everytime tedious but its still the way to go.
If you where to auto escape everything then you would run into problems one day when you want/need unescaped data.
ZendX_View_Autoescaping, this project provides you a ViewRenderer with autoescaping of all assigned view variables.
https://github.com/jensklose/ZendX_View_Autoescaping
Try it!
It supports:
escaping into deep data structures
escaping the array keys
possibility to switch the escaping context (html, json, nofilter)
Do you use table-of-contents for listing all the functions (and maybe variables) of a class in the beginning of big source code file? I know that alternative to that kind of listing would be to split up big files into smaller classes/files, so that their class declaration would be self-explanatory enough.. but some complex tasks require a lot of code. I'm not sure is it really worth it spending your time subdividing implementation into multiple of files? Or is it ok to create an index-listing additionally to the class/interface declaration?
EDIT:
To better illustrate how I use table-of-contents this is an example from my hobby project. It's actually not listing functions, but code blocks inside a function.. but you can probably get the idea anyway..
/*
CONTENTS
Order_mouse_from_to_points
Lines_intersecting_with_upper_point
Lines_intersecting_with_both_points
Lines_not_intersecting
Lines_intersecting_bottom_points
Update_intersection_range_indices
Rough_method
Normal_method
First_selected_item
Last_selected_item
Other_selected_item
*/
void SelectionManager::FindSelection()
{
// Order_mouse_from_to_points
...
// Lines_intersecting_with_upper_point
...
// Lines_intersecting_with_both_points
...
// Lines_not_intersecting
...
// Lines_intersecting_bottom_points
...
// Update_intersection_range_indices
for(...)
{
// Rough_method
....
// Normal_method
if(...)
{
// First_selected_item
...
// Last_selected_item
...
// Other_selected_item
...
}
}
}
Notice that index-items don't have spaces. Because of this I can click on one them and press F4 to jump to the item-usage, and F2 to jump back (simple visual studio find-next/prevous-shortcuts).
EDIT:
Another alternative solution to this indexing is using collapsed c# regions. You can configure visual studio to show only region names and hide all the code. Of course keyboard support for that source code navigation is pretty cumbersome...
I know that alternative to that kind of listing would be to split up big files into smaller classes/files, so that their class declaration would be self-explanatory enough.
Correct.
but some complex tasks require a lot of code
Incorrect. While a "lot" of code be required, long runs of code (over 25 lines) are a really bad idea.
actually not listing functions, but code blocks inside a function
Worse. A function that needs a table of contents must be decomposed into smaller functions.
I'm not sure is it really worth it spending your time subdividing implementation into multiple of files?
It is absolutely mandatory that you split things into smaller files. The folks that maintain, adapt and reuse your code need all the help they can get.
is it ok to create an index-listing additionally to the class/interface declaration?
No.
If you have to resort to this kind of trick, it's too big.
Also, many languages have tools to generate API docs from the code. Java, Python, C, C++ have documentation tools. Even with Javadoc, epydoc or Doxygen you still have to design things so that they are broken into intellectually manageable pieces.
Make things simpler.
Use a tool to create an index.
If you create a big index you'll have to maintain it as you change your code. Most modern IDEs create list of class members anyway. it seems like a waste of time to create such index.
I would never ever do this sort of busy-work in my code. The most I would do manually is insert a few lines at the top of the file/class explaining what this module did and how it is intended to be used.
If a list of methods and their interfaces would be useful, I generate them automatically, through a tool such as Doxygen.
I've done things like this. Not whole tables of contents, but a similar principle -- just ad-hoc links between comments and the exact piece of code in question. Also to link pieces of code that make the same simplifying assumptions that I suspect may need fixing up later.
You can use Visual Studio's task list to get a listing of certain types of comment. The format of the comments can be configured in Tools|Options, Environment\Task List. This isn't something I ended up using myself but it looks like it might help with navigating the code if you use this system a lot.
If you can split your method like that, you should probably write more methods. After this is done, you can use an IDE to give you the static call stack from the initial method.
EDIT: You can use Eclipse's 'Show Call Hierarchy' feature while programming.