newton.dave wrote:
>
> I don't really see it as a problem, quite frankly; it sounds like your
> package layout is either too tightly-coupled or you're trying to make your
> messages too fine-grained.
>
Yes, maybe I do so. But I had classified the action dependent properties as
a nice feature a
--- On Mon, 12/15/08, Marsman wrote:
> And using a super class seems to me only like a workaround for
> the specified problem. Any other ideas?
I don't really see it as a problem, quite frankly; it sounds like your package
layout is either too tightly-coupled or you're trying to make your messag
newton.dave wrote:
>
> --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Marsman wrote:
>> How can I solve this problem? Do I really have to code a
>> second file like AddCustomerForm.properties with the same
>> properties as in AddCustomer.property?
>
> There are several solutions; the easiest is to create a
> "package
--- On Mon, 12/15/08, Marsman wrote:
> How can I solve this problem? Do I really have to code a
> second file like AddCustomerForm.properties with the same
> properties as in AddCustomer.property?
There are several solutions; the easiest is to create a "package.properties"
file in the appropria
4 matches
Mail list logo
