15 Nov
2018
15 Nov
'18
11:05 a.m.
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. 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",
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:
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..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
@PropertyGroup("target")
@PropertyFeature("reference")
page
@PropertyGroup({"target", "entityReference"})
@PropertyFeature("reference")
reference
@PropertyGroup({"target", "entityReference"})
type
@PropertyGroup("target")
@PropertyFeature("reference")
document
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
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
>