it to check the new Bean properties files.
S.
-Original Message-
From: Jordi Salvat i Alabart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20 January 2004 01:31
To: JMeter Developers List
Subject: Re: Bean Properties
En/na Jordi Salvat i Alabart ha escrit:
[...]
In which case, we should:
- Add i18nEdit's
+ from me.
great. thanks for doing all the leg work.
peter lin
--- Jordi Salvat i Alabart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
i18nEdit is exactly what we need: it handles
projects with multiple
.properties files very nicely. You just press F2 and
it takes you to the
next [untranslated]
]
To: JMeter Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Bean Properties
Hi.
i18nEdit is exactly what we need: it handles projects with multiple
.properties files very nicely. You just press F2 and it takes you to the
next [untranslated] property -- even
, January 18, 2004 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Bean Properties
I'm for a double-check. Extending the test doesn't look trivial, but not
too difficult either. One of the nice things about i18nEdit (according
to its own documentation) is that it still allows editing the property
files with whatever
: Jordi Salvat i Alabart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JMeter Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Bean Properties
I'm for a double-check. Extending the test doesn't look trivial, but not
too difficult either. One of the nice things about i18nEdit
- Original Message -
From: Jordi Salvat i Alabart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JMeter Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Bean Properties
[...]
i18nEdit expects untranslated texts to be left nonexisting or blank.
Otherwise it will assume
En/na Sebastian Bazley ha escrit:
- Original Message -
From: Jordi Salvat i Alabart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
So, I would propose to write our ResourceBundle subclass that will
provide the English strings for any resources missing in the
per-language property file.
I don't think any
- Original Message -
From: Jordi Salvat i Alabart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JMeter Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: Bean Properties
En/na Sebastian Bazley ha escrit:
- Original Message -
From: Jordi Salvat i Alabart [EMAIL
Been looking at RBManager. If I've understood well, RBManager manages
single files (with their translations) only.
Looks like it's not a good idea to have tons of small .properties files
scattered all through the src directories -- unless we find some other
tool that handles that better.
One
Hi.
i18nEdit is exactly what we need: it handles projects with multiple
.properties files very nicely. You just press F2 and it takes you to the
next [untranslated] property -- even if it is in a separate file. It
also provides the equivalent of diff/patch to handle sending changes and
: Saturday, January 17, 2004 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Bean Properties
Hi.
i18nEdit is exactly what we need: it handles projects with multiple
.properties files very nicely. You just press F2 and it takes you to the
next [untranslated] property -- even if it is in a separate file. It
also provides
Is the idea to move all the Bean-related properties from
messages.properties
to
classnameResourceslang.properties?
It seems to me that this will result in a lot of property files to create,
translate, test and maintain.
I can see that it is useful to be able to have more than one set of
I'd have to agree with sebastian. package level properties would be nice and reduce
the number of files to update and change. especially with internationalization.
peter lin
BAZLEY, Sebastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the idea to move all the Bean-related properties from
Opposite to what I said about Editors and BeanInfos, which have a
default place to live in defined by the JavaBeans standard, the location
of resources was of my own choice, so we just need to decide what's
preferrable.
The alternative is to have a messages.properties (global or
per-package),
I really have no preference for the naming convention.
the one you have looks fine to me.
since I'm lazy, having per package or per protocol
properties would be nice and reduce the number of
properties files.
:)
peter
--- Jordi Salvat i Alabart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opposite to what I
Being lazy, I'd rather choose one .properties file per bean: it makes
keys shorter to type (no need to copy/paste the prefixes) and easier to
find (since files are much smaller).
On the maintenance side, I'm looking at RBManager: RBManager:
:)
I'd have to say one per bean is more common from my
own experience. either way, i have no objections.
peter lin
--- Jordi Salvat i Alabart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Being lazy, I'd rather choose one .properties file
per bean: it makes
keys shorter to type (no need to copy/paste the
17 matches
Mail list logo