Constants vs Properties

Question

Hi there,
We currently use properties files for the storage of error messages something like this: ...
EM53=Invalid account number
...This all works fine, but I was wondering about the performance issues associated with reading properties, and I wondered about the advantages of using Java constants to store these values instead (say in an interface).
String EM53 = "Invalid account number";Now the obvious issue with this, is how to get from a string containing the error code ("EM53" in the example) to the actual error message. This is where Reflection could be used. But then there are performance implications to using Reflection to get the value of a field too.
Please note that the software will only ever be used by one company in English speaking countries and it is extremely unlikely that we would require multiple versions of these messages. Also note that the current deployment method of new releases of the software, precludes the deployment of individual jars or files.
Obviously I can test the performance implications for myself easily enough, but would anyone like to comment on these alternative approaches from a design or maintenance perspective?
Thanks,
Tim

Answer 1

If you wanted to have variables you could access,
then something simple like this would
work:public class Messages {
public static final String EM53 = "Invalid account
nt number";Yep that was what I was suggesting. The issue is that we pass back the error code from the server to the client, so we need a way of converting from a string code into the constant name to get the string value for display. That was what I was suggesting the use of Reflection for.
uses it. So changing the value of that string would
require recompiling every class that used it, to get
the new value into those classes.True - we are aware of that. Messages change very infrequently and if we're using Reflection to read the constant then this doesn't apply anyway.
quantify them. You only read a properties file once,
when the program starts up (at least I hope that's
how your code works). After that you're just doing a
lookup in a hash table to get the error message,This is a good point. I'll have to think about this.
Thanks,
Tim