Thank you Gabriele, for driving this initiative. I see the strong value it brings in terms of clarity and consistency for both KIE developers and end users.
From a usability perspective, I believe expanding the annotation with additional metadata could make it even more powerful and self‑documenting. Alongside the allowed values you’ve already proposed, I feel the following fields could also be considered: * Accessibility: Whether the property is intended for internal use (KIE developers) or external use (end users). * Mandatory: Indicates if the property must be provided. * Default value: Specifies the default setting, complementing the allowed values list. * Short description: A concise explanation of the property’s purpose, including field type (String, integer, Long, Boolean etc). Regards, Jijo Thomas K From: soniya abraham via dev <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 19 June 2026 at 5:03 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: soniya abraham <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [HEADS-UP] Annotation of user-configurable properties Hi Gabriele, Thank you for bringing up this idea — great work! I believe it will be very helpful, as it will make it much easier to identify the properties and their corresponding values. Having a dedicated annotation will simplify maintenance, improve clarity, and open the door for future enhancements. I’m confident this will add real value moving forward. Thanks, Soniya From: Gabriele Cardosi <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 19 June 2026 at 3:48 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [HEADS-UP] Annotation of user-configurable properties Hi all, during documentation tasks, but also in the development phase, we face the issue that a lot of user-configurable properties (e.g. system properties, application.properties) are defined as simple String inside our codebase. This makes both their maintenance and their knowledge hard. We then thought of creating a specific annotation for them. With that in place, such properties will be straightforward to identify and track, in case of addition/modification/removal. Having a specific annotation could also allow, in future, the implementation of other features (e.g. define what are the allowed values for each property). The task is defined at the following kie-issue [1] There are already two opened PRs: drools [2] kogito-runtimes [3] to have a better idea of the final result. Cheers Gabriele [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dkie-2Dissues_issues_2349&d=DwIBaQ&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=B-xdniRg_RT5v51i5IErRyekoV6Xm0zybs6yQwll-vM&m=h2Cu0VKW0RUxKNknaPvky6B73yq7z64P5OU_2NLFkn9c8fKxc53Co_gI5_nBN8Oj&s=4lBmO36qxpNHrRSkZun7nZfI2GRThNncNUA0OzWe0wY&e= [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dkie-2Ddrools_pull_6766&d=DwIBaQ&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=B-xdniRg_RT5v51i5IErRyekoV6Xm0zybs6yQwll-vM&m=h2Cu0VKW0RUxKNknaPvky6B73yq7z64P5OU_2NLFkn9c8fKxc53Co_gI5_nBN8Oj&s=B_A5UHBOUoYEjkXZVIu5yCTyZeLt_Rx5qV_nEqLt--w&e= [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dkie-2Dkogito-2Druntimes_pull_4321&d=DwIBaQ&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=B-xdniRg_RT5v51i5IErRyekoV6Xm0zybs6yQwll-vM&m=h2Cu0VKW0RUxKNknaPvky6B73yq7z64P5OU_2NLFkn9c8fKxc53Co_gI5_nBN8Oj&s=szSy-t82AQpQO_1Oaxfrkimx0VaqOT7W0_x0xYyUwYM&e=
