I'm working with an MVC 4 app that was originally created with the intention of possibly requiring language localisation so there's a heavy use of .resx files and corresponding embedding of references throughout the project. As it turns out, the app will only ever be used by English speaking audiences and indeed no other languages were ever loaded in. What we've got now is an overhead every time we need to put text on a page and increasing inconsistency as English language is hard-coded into places which can't directly access the resource files such as .js files and reference data in the DB.
Short of a lot of copying and pasting, is there any automated way to extract the English language values from the resource files and replace their references in the views? In a perfect world there'd be a tool to do this and certainly it's conceptually scriptable, does anything like this exist already?
You will have to script it. I have done similar stuff with the O2 Platform AST manipulation Mono.Cecil and mono Cecil APIs.
If you give me a small project with the use can you need (a resx file and an MVC view) I can show you a code snippet example
I haven't seen anything that would take care of this. My first thought is because of the localization issues that could be presented in most "out of the box" solution.
This maybe far fetched, but giving it a shot. Could you write a C# app that would load the assembly that holds the resource file, then loop through every file in the project and replace the resource keys with the values?
As you said, it is possible to be scripted, and this seems like the easiest yet crudest way to complete the task in my mind. Depending on the number of resources you're talking about, obviously it maybe easier and safer to copy/paste.
Satellite assemblies..If you have all app resources placed in a project then create the non-default language you want to implement. For example fr_ca.ErrorMsg | en_gb.ErrorMsg and en_Us.ErrorMsg. The default language can be specified in the main Thread.CultureInfo If en_us then fill you en_us file with all entries need and other resources will only be loaded if it does not exist in the default resource->en_us.
Related
Having rather large project using Resources for internationalization (following this guide: ASP.NET MVC 2 Localization complete guide, using things like data attributes, and so on) we run into the need of translating the resource files. In the beggining of project I selected approach to have lot of small resource files - for each view, viewmodel, controller, ... So I ended up having hundreds of resources. During the translations (which is done by our partners using ResXManager tool we run into trouble identifying the context of the string (where is it displayed, to find out the correct form of translation to make sense when displayed).
So I was asked to make the mutation of application which do not display the localized values, but the keys (or string names). E.g. having string in resources TBL_NAME used somewhere in the view like #ResX.TBL_NAME and translated into english as "Name", I would like to show it in this special mutation as "TBL_NAME", so the translator may see the context - where exactly this string is used.
The best would be, if this is not special build of application, but rather the another "language" of the application available for translators, so he can switch between english and this "unlocalized" languages.
I'm looking some easy ideas of doing this. So far I was thinking of these approaches:
Override ResourceManager.GetString - cannot use, because we use generated Designer classes to access strings massively and so far I haven't find a way to change created ResourceManager (see this answer). Did I miss something?
Create resources for some unused language, which will contain pairs string name/translated value as TBL_NAME/TBL_NAME - viable, but very exhausting since we have hundreds of resources. Also the addition of new resource will require us to remeber that we need to add also this unused language resource will exact same strings name. You also have to do twice much work when adding single string to application.
At the moment, it seems for me, that using resources and current approach it is impossible to solve this task, so I decided to ask this as question (and I'm aware it is rather discussion than question) here, hoping, someone will give me some hint about other approach to solve this problem.
My preferred option would be to give the translators an environment where they can see what they are translating. Rigi requires a bit of setup (basically you need to add an additional UI language), but once you have done that translators can work within the live website - or in a test instance, which is what we did.
They can also work in screenshots, which is convenient when translators would have to access admin or other role specific pages but you do not want to bother giving them all kinds of user rights. These screenshots can be generated as part of automated UI tests or during manual UI testing.
I am afraid I can't say anything about the cost of the solution, but our translators are really happy with it. I am not sure if this is what you are looking for since you asked for an easy solution, but it definitely solves the issue of giving translators the context they need to do their job - better than displaying resource IDs.
I have a library DLL full with sort algorithmn, parsers, validators, converters etc. The DLL is about 40 Mb (that is not much I know but still). Now I would like to reference just the parsers of that DLL. The point is to get out those parsers without shipping 40 Mb to the customer.
Is there a way everytime I make a release build to just take those up-to-date parsers from my library, store them into some kind of .partialDll file and deliver only them to the customer? The result would be me keeping all my helper classes in one big library which keeps growing and the customers get just what they ordered..
I guess I would need to deal with alot of reflection to achieve something like this, right? Any ideas?
Let me start with a quote from MSDN:
"Assemblies are the building blocks of .NET Framework applications; they form the fundamental unit of deployment […]."
Note that the quote is about assemblies, not about DLLs. There's a difference!
Although most .NET assemblies consist of exactly one DLL file, that is not a strict requirement: An assembly can in fact consist of more than one file; such a "multi-file assembly" can, for instance, consist of several DLLs, which in turn are called "netmodules". (A netmodule might have a .netmodule file extension by convention, but it's really a DLL containing .NET metadata and bytecode.) Each multi-file assembly has exactly one "main" module which carries the metadata that references all the other assembly files and so ties them together into a logical whole.
While an assembly has to be deployed in full (as per the above quote), the .NET runtime can load only those netmodules that are actually required for JIT code compilation and execution.
So you can split up an assembly into several parts, and have the runtime load only what is actually needed; but you cannot do the same to a netmodule / DLL file. A DLL file can only be deployed and loaded in its entirety.
Note also that Visual Studio's support for netmodules is non-existent for all practical purposes, so most people don't use them, which is why you see so few multi-file assemblies in the real world.
The bottom line is this: In practice, if you or your clients are interested in only a part of an assembly ("DLL"), then it's usually easier to split a large assembly (that is, one large Visual Studio project) into several inter-dependent assemblies (several smaller Visual Studio projects).
In general, no, there is no way to achieve that. Once you pack "everything" into a module and compile it, you can't split that module later into smaller ones. (well, ok, you can analyze the bytecode and rewrite the assembly, see the end of this post).
For me, your nullhypothesis seems wrong. You don't need to work with "one huge library that keeps all your helper classes", and really, you dont want, or you will not want to either. If you don't feel like that, I assure you that in time, years maybe, you will hate such one-to-have-it-all approach.
This is exactly what you want to escape from and this is why .Net and many other languages/environments support concept of "libraries" or "modules" and allow you to use multiple of them, and that's why most of the projects you see everywhere aren't created as "one huge EXE". It's much easier to reuse, analyze and even hunt bugs when you have it in smaller chunks.
--
However, if you'd insist, there are ways (ugly) to achive something-like you think. I assume that the "huge DLL" is in C# and is controlled by you.
First, somewhat naiive but working way, is to use "file links". In VisualStudio you can have a project that contains tons of files and producess a BigDLL "all.dll", and just by its side you can create another project that will not contain any files at all, but that will contain links to the first projects' files. Use typical "Add a file.." option to a project and note that near the final "Add" button there's a down arrow that expands to "Add as link..".
This will cause the file to stay in HugeProject, but the SmallProject will see the file too and when SmallProject is compiled, it will pull the code from that file too.
Note that this way you will actually build two separate modules assemblies: big one and small one, and your final product will need to reference the small one.
This way is naiive and ugly, it is just as if you manually copied/splitted the huge project into smaller ones, but with the tiny advantage is that you don't need to copy the code files around.
--
intermission for side-thoughts:
you can use #if to conditionally turn off some currently-unused code, however setting the flags that drive those IFs will be cumbersome
you can edit .csproj files and use MSBuild conditional clauses to automatically exclude unused code files from your HugeProject during final builds, however setting the flags that drive those IFs will be cumbersome too
--
The second way is to keep everything in the HugeProject, and to have your application(s) reference it directly, and then after building and testing everything, just before packing that and sending to customer - use some kind of trimming utility that will check what parts of code are referenced and that will remove all dead code from the assemblies. I can't give you any name for such utility, but many obfuscators come with such feature.
They will run through your compiled code, cross-reference everything, change/remove/trash class/method/propertynames and also they may as a bonus remove unused bits. Then, they'll write mangled assemblies back to disk ensuring that they reference each other and not the original ones from before mangling.
example: See a question related to that
example: See an example of such utility also consider ILMerge for better results.
Cons - utility may leave some trash it couldn't decide whether it is used or not, finding/testing/buying it may take some time and resources, you can have some signing problems since the stripped-assembly will be a brand new assembly, etc. Also, such utilities have problems if you invoke some code only by reflection and it may require you to provide some extra hints or to make sure the code "seems to be used" (example: a whole namespace of "plugins" that implement "IPlugin" and then your app searched that NS for Types and uses Activator.CreateInstance to instantiate them; no hard-linked usages, trimmer may decide to remove all plugins as "unused"; you'll need to configure trimmer carefully or be suprised).
Probably a few other ways could be found too, but seriously, in most of the times, you don't want to waste your time on that, especially manually. So just tidy up your code and split it into small libs, or start looking for automatic obfuscator&trimmer.
We are localizing our forms and strings in a project and are having a problem; Visual Studio creates a resource file for each form when setting Localizable to true.
It's nothing more than a minor nuisance having to send all of the resource files to translators, but is it possible to get VS to use a global resources file instead?
Thanks!
Like Yoda would say, possible it is.
You will have to dynamically translate the dialogs when they are loaded. I did this on several projects and I would say it's much better than having localized resource files.
As others already said, it is possible to use global resource file manually. I believe that it is actually more problematic and less maintainable but still possible.
Now onto why MS decided on one resource file per form. Well, from Internationalization point of view, this solution is better. On one hand it gives translators one important thing: the context. On the other hand, it is typical for project to grow. It is really unlikely that you will make changes to all forms at once. And you know what? Depending on your deal with translation vendor, you can usually spend less on Localization if just few percent of strings would change. That is just because they can use Translation Memory (TM) software.
With one global resource file, there is usually no context and no way to reasonably use TM. The result is, translations are less accurate and take longer (one needs to actually read large blocks of text to make sure everything is correctly translated).
By the way, you do not need to send out individual resource files. Instead you can use some kind of translation kit generator (or translation manager software) to create something useful for translators (for example translation memory friendly file). Sadly, I cannot give you the names of such tools (although I know that there are few of them) since my employer is using custom system for that and I didn't have a chance to work with other tools.
WinFrom doesn't support generating a global resources for Forms automatically in VS.
You must assign the strings by yourself. For example:
Add a Resources.resx with Resources.designer.cs to your project;
Define your strings in Resources.resx.
In your form.cs code, assign the strings in constructor like:
Label1.Text = Resources.Label1Text;
We have a customer that would like to modify application user messages that we store in .resx files. I'm thinking this can't be done since the xml file behind the .resx is embedded in a compiled dll. Am I correct? Or, is there a way keep the xml outside of the compiled dll? I realize this can easily be done by other means but I like the ease of the resx file--the classes/properties are created for you.
You are correct. Anything is possible of course, but it won't be nearly as convenient or easy to maintain. It doesn't sound like a satellite assembly would fly here. An application setting is about the easiest. A good way to keep requests like these at bay is to quote an accurate price that includes the hassle of maintaining this for the next N years.
We need to have our apps be translated into other languages. This entails renaming the .text properties of our visible controls as well as other literals found within our apps to whatever language we need to translate into.
Is this something that can easily be accomplished with .resx files? I was thinking of creating a master resx key/value list where the key would be the fully qualified name of the control/variable/constant etc. and then refactor our apps to look into this file to get their values based on the cultureinfo found at runtime?
Is there a standard or simpler approach to this problem?
Check out FairlyLocal when you get a chance. It's a library that lets you do i18n using GetText, thus allowing you to follow the best practices from the rest of the industry rather than the .resx stuff that MS tries to force on you.
There a quite a few resources for this:
MSDN guide for ASP.NET applications.
Code Project example for WPF applications.
You are correct in thinking that this can be achieved through the use of .resx files. Basically you create .resx file for each language you wish to support and if you give it a name based on the locale (EN-US, DE-DE, etc) then it gets picked up automatically.