15 Nov
2018
15 Nov
'18
1:55 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 1:24 PM Adel Atallah <adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:13 AM Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:06 AM Adel Atallah <adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
This is not enforced by the code.
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.
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
> > <mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:51 AM Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
> > > 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
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 15 Nov 2018, at 08:02, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On 15 Nov 2018, at 06:29, Marius Dumitru Florea <
> > > > mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:12 PM Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
> > > > 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
<
> > > > > >>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> 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
<
> > > > adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com>
> > > > > >>>> 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