On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 1:24 PM Adel Atallah <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:13 AM Thomas Mortagne > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:06 AM Adel Atallah <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Ok so it seems like we are getting back to the proposition we made with > > > Vincent. > > > We need one annotation to enforce the dependence between parameters > > > (reference and type in our example) and another one that can be used > > > to *deduce* conflicting parameters. > > > > > I don't understand how a hierarchy of groups can help us specify a > > > dependence between parameters. > > > > I don't think it does, it's just that since we are defining groups > > having subgroups would be useful visually. > > > > > A parameter is either in the same group > > > as another one or it is not. The hierarchy seems to focus on problems > > > that we are not trying to solve here. > > > The original proposal was similar to what Thomas proposed, but without > > > hierarchy: > > > > > > @Alternative("reference") > > > @Group("entityReference") > > > reference > > > > > > @Alternative("reference") > > > @Group("entityReference") > > > type > > > > > > @Alternative("reference") > > > page > > > > > > @Alternative("reference") > > > document > > > > > > where "Alternative" is the same as "Feature". Now Marius didn't agree > > > with that because the "Alternative" annotation should not be bind to > > > "reference" and "type" parameters but to the group "entityReference" > > > > And as I said in my proposal the features are associated to the group, > > not the properties. I agree that associating it to the property (and > > ending up with half of a group conflicting with half of another) does > > really make sense. > > > > This is not enforced by the code.
I don't understand what you mean, there is no code yet. For me the code which is going to parse this Java bean will of course make sure the features are associated to the group of the property. > You know that features are > associated to groups *because* they are bound to the same property. > Anyway I'm +1 to do it this way. > > > > , > > > which is not possible to do without creating other classes. I don't > > > think this is an issue to put the "Alternative" annotation on > > > "reference" and "type" because we should have all the necessary > > > information to *deduce* the conflicting parameters. It's true that > > > removing the "Alternative" annotation of one of "reference" or "type" > > > should produce the same result though, which could be confusing. > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:23 AM Marius Dumitru Florea > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:51 AM Thomas Mortagne > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm also really not a fan of having to implement a component just to > > > > > indicate that two groups of properties are conflicting. > > > > > > > > > > +1 for making @Group support a hierarchy, that's indeed nice. > > > > > > > > > > For for conflicting we need a dedicated annotation IMO. > > > > > > > > > > So starting from your previous example I would expect something like: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup("target") > > > > > @PropertyFeature("reference") > > > > > page > > > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup({"target", "entityReference"}) > > > > > @PropertyFeature("reference") > > > > > reference > > > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup({"target", "entityReference"}) > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup("target") > > > > > @PropertyFeature("reference") > > > > > document > > > > > > > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is complete. The following doesn't make sense: > > > > > > > > {{include page="..." type="..."/}} > > > > > > > > and neither this: > > > > > > > > {{include document="..." type="..." /}} > > > > > > > > So it's not the reference parameter alone that provides the "reference" > > > > feature. The pair / group of parameters (reference and type) are > > > > providing > > > > the "reference" feature. This is why I think there is the need to > > > > specify > > > > the "feature" on the sub group "entityReference" not on the parameter. > > > > And > > > > to do this we need another class.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup("target", features = "reference") > > > > > page > > > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup({"target", "entityReference"}, features = "reference") > > > > > reference > > > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup({"target", "entityReference"}) > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup("target", features = "reference") > > > > > document > > > > > > > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * PropertyGroup define the hierarchy (also proposed a String[] instead > > > > > of String based value to show all possible ways to pass the hierarchy > > > > > value) > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for this > > > > > > > > > > > > > * PropertyFeature (name is negotiable :)) or PropertyGroup "features" > > > > > field associate the group with a set of unique "features". This is the > > > > > same logic than for extensions where several groups with with a shared > > > > > feature are in conflict > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not associating the feature to the group. That is the problem > > > > IMO. > > > > You are associating the feature to the parameter. For instance: > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup("foo", features = "input") > > > > one > > > > > > > > @PropertyGroup("foo", features = "output") > > > > two > > > > > > > > Is the "input" and "output" feature associate to the "foo" group or to > > > > the > > > > parameters one and two respectively? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marius > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We could also decide to support only one feature per group right now > > > > > since we don't yet have the need for several but it felt more natural > > > > > like this. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:04 AM Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Nov 2018, at 08:02, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 15 Nov 2018, at 06:29, Marius Dumitru Florea < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:12 PM Vincent Massol > > > > > > >> <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> I thought about something like this but I discarded it as I > > > > > > >>> find this > > > > > > >>> complicated for something that should be relatively simple. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I don't think it's that complicated because: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> * Conflicting parameters should be an exception, not the rule. > > > > > > >> What > > > > > other > > > > > > >> macros, besides include / display, need this? > > > > > > >> * If you just want to group macro parameters for display then you > > > > > only need > > > > > > >> to use the @Group annotation. You don't need to implement a > > > > > ParameterGroup. > > > > > > >> The ParameterGroup is needed only for conflicting parameters > > > > > > >> (ATM). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure but it’s still 10x more complicated than just having > > > > > > > everything > > > > > in one place in the parameters class with annotations as was suggested > > > > > initially. > > > > > > > > > > > > And requires unnecessary component instances that will stay in the > > > > > > EM > > > > > for no need. The way to describe the descriptor is transient and only > > > > > serves to generate the macro descriptors. In the end what’s important > > > > > is > > > > > the descriptor format. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > >> Marius > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> I’d prefer to have some simple annotations if possible. In other > > > > > words, if > > > > > > >>> feels a bit of over-engineering for the need. Now I have to > > > > > > >>> admit > > > > > that I > > > > > > >>> stopped following this thread after the original proposal so > > > > > > >>> maybe > > > > > I’m just > > > > > > >>> completely off :) > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Thanks > > > > > > >>> -Vincent > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> On 14 Nov 2018, at 15:51, Marius Dumitru Florea < > > > > > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> WDYT about: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> -----8<----- IncludeMacroParameters ---------- > > > > > > >>>> @Group("target") > > > > > > >>>> page > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> @Group("target/entityReference") > > > > > > >>>> reference > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> @Group("target/entityReference") > > > > > > >>>> type > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> @Group("target") > > > > > > >>>> document > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> section > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> context > > > > > > >>>> ----->8--------------- > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> That is: specify *only* the group hierarchy in the macro > > > > > > >>>> parameter > > > > > > >>>> descriptor. This would produce the following hierarchy: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> * <target> > > > > > > >>>> ** page > > > > > > >>>> ** <entityReference> > > > > > > >>>> *** reference > > > > > > >>>> *** type > > > > > > >>>> ** document > > > > > > >>>> * section > > > > > > >>>> * context > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Next, for the cases where we want to customize the behavior of > > > > > > >>>> a > > > > > group, > > > > > > >>> we > > > > > > >>>> introduce a component role ParameterGroup. For instance, for > > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > "target" > > > > > > >>>> parameter group of the Include Macro we would create > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> @Named("include/target") > > > > > > >>>> public class TargetParameterGroup implements ParameterGroup {} > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> To specify that the members of a parameter group are exclusive > > > > > > >>>> we > > > > > can > > > > > > >>>> either use a method in the ParameterGroup interface (e.g. > > > > > isExclusive()) > > > > > > >>> or > > > > > > >>>> use an annotation on the implementation TargetParameterGroup. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > > > > >>>> Marius > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:03 PM Adel Atallah < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Hello, > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I'd like to briefly summarize the situation so that we can > > > > > > >>>>> make > > > > > some > > > > > > >>>>> progress. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> What we have: > > > > > > >>>>> * We define "parameters" in a macro by creating a Java Bean, > > > > > > >>>>> which > > > > > > >>>>> provides all the getters and setters of the parameters we > > > > > > >>>>> want. > > > > > > >>>>> * We can use annotations on these getters/setters to define > > > > > > >>>>> some > > > > > > >>>>> behavior or metadata for these parameters (description, > > > > > > >>>>> mandatory, > > > > > > >>>>> deprecated...) > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> What we want: > > > > > > >>>>> * Being able to handle conflicting parameters. For instance > > > > > > >>>>> when we > > > > > > >>>>> deprecate a parameter and add a new one to replace it, we > > > > > > >>>>> should be > > > > > > >>>>> able to either use the deprecated parameter or the new one > > > > > > >>>>> but not > > > > > > >>>>> both. > > > > > > >>>>> * We also want to group parameters that are related to each > > > > > > >>>>> other. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> What we proposed: > > > > > > >>>>> * Use annotations on the parameters to express the conflict. > > > > > > >>>>> * Marius proposed to see the problem as a boolean expression > > > > > > >>>>> such > > > > > as: > > > > > > >>>>> (page XOR (reference AND type) XOR document) OR section OR > > > > > > >>>>> context. > > > > > > >>>>> This would translate as: the user can use the 'section' and/or > > > > > > >>>>> 'context' parameters (if they want), can use only one of these > > > > > > >>>>> parameters: 'page', ('reference' and 'type') or 'document', > > > > > > >>>>> where > > > > > > >>>>> 'reference' and 'type' depend on each other and you can't use > > > > > > >>>>> one > > > > > > >>>>> without the other. > > > > > > >>>>> * You can see on previous e-mails the kind of annotations we > > > > > proposed > > > > > > >>>>> to solve the issue. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > >>>>> Adel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Thomas Mortagne > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thomas Mortagne -- Thomas Mortagne
