On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:34 PM Adel Atallah <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> So what we thought about with Vincent for implementing the "concept of
> aliases or groups" would be to actually have two new annotations that
> we would use on macro properties.
> The first one is a "Group" annotation which is meant to indicate that
> some properties are part of the same group, obviously.
> The second is an "Alternative" annotation which is meant to indicate
> that only one property / group of properties can be used (among the
> ones that are part of the alternative).
> Here is an example:
> We want for the Include macro to be able to specify either:
> the "reference" and "type" parameters
> or
> the "page" parameter
> For that, we will change the IncludeMacroParameters java class like this:
>
> @Alternative("reference")
> @Group("entityReference")
> public void setReference(String reference)
>
> @Alternative("reference")
> @Group("entityReference")
> public void setType(EntityType type)
>
> @Alternative("reference")
> public void setPage(String page)
>
> In the WYSIWYG side, we will only be able to specify either the
> "reference" and the "type" or the "page" parameter.
>
I think it would make more sense, at least in this case, to have the
alternative as an attribute of the group, because semantically the
"entityReference" group is an alternative to the page parameter. You can't
say that the type parameter alone is an alternative to the page parameter.
The @Group annotation is clear. No doubt about it. I'm not sure about
the @Alternative annotation. I'm thinking that the "alternative" is also a
group, where only one item from the group can be used, which could be
expressed with an attribute of the @Group annotation.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Adel
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:51 AM Marius Dumitru Florea
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:31 PM Vincent Massol <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 19 Sep 2018, at 14:47, Adel Atallah <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:00 PM Vincent Massol <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 5 Jul 2018, at 12:06, Vincent Massol <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On 4 Jul 2018, at 12:07, Thomas Mortagne <
> [email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Here are more details on the actual use case we need to support:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> In include/Display macro either you set:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> * "reference" and "type" (which default to DOCUMENT)
> > > >>>> * or you set “page"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Globally I think we need to add 3 concepts to macro parameter
> > > descriptor:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 1) The concept of “deprecated” parameter. For example for
> “document”
> > > in the include macro.
> > > >>> 2) The concept of aliases or groups, i.e the ability to list
> > > parameters that are mutually exclusive. Example: reference + type vs
> page
> > > for display/include macros. This would mean that in the Macro Dialog
> UI if
> > > you select one of those the other gets unselected/cleared out (you
> cannot
> > > have mutually exclusive params have values).
> > > >>> 3) The concept of Advanced parameters. For example, we should put
> > > reference + type as advanced parameters so that they are not shown to
> the
> > > user by default (and so that the page parameter is more highlighted).
> Users
> > > would need to click on Advanced to see advanced parameters. I think
> we’re
> > > doing something automatic today (I don’t remember the details) to try
> to
> > > hide some parameters but we should probably review this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> WDYT?
> > > >>
> > > >> Ping!
> > > >>
> > > >> Do we agree about this? If we do we can then create jira issue
> about it
> > > and take it for implementation.
> > > >
> > > > +1, I can create the jira issue if it's ok.
> > >
> > > Please do :)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > @Marius: Ok for you?
> > >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > -Vincent
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
