Thanks @Gabriele<mailto:[email protected]> for considering my suggestion,
Field Type : What I thought was the type of the value accepted - String, Long, Integer, Date etc.. Regards, Jijo Thomas K From: Gabriele Cardosi <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 22 June 2026 at 1:19 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Jijo Thomas K <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [HEADS-UP] Annotation of user-configurable properties This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious<https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/AdhS1Rd-!-XFVHHhz_o9zvLrS4iWvXzBTOUgHad1qpamn1QGBUZN6vPCrFC6rigvqsqK86gbyBdcBny8evWjiD0h9qbVetA8LHattzH7sFT4uB1clidG75LhCy3uMhc3819HxDw$> Hi all, thanks for your feedback. @Jijo, about your suggestions: "Accessibility" : this is managed by the creation of a second annotation - "@KieInternal"; I did not mention in this thread to keep it simple, but it is mentioned in the issue<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dkie-2Dissues_issues_2349&d=DwMFaQ&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=chE-O7gziZQiZi9dvpCs_NiJukBA2SJazsOwhCN4Zr4&m=54dC1Xa_YDAGwAFnvv_zsJv05wYNoIKDN8qHyVlNy2UjZSi_dQ6LdOuUCUhPZVYH&s=IZ0VHHUb4t3pqexcumGdK6-KQFH9y0GLGfbKuo1_xbU&e=> itself; "Default value": ok "Field type": I would like to have a specific metadata for that "Short description": I'm doubtful about that. There is also a PR comment<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dkie-2Ddrools_pull_6766-23pullrequestreview-2D4541647613&d=DwMFaQ&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=chE-O7gziZQiZi9dvpCs_NiJukBA2SJazsOwhCN4Zr4&m=54dC1Xa_YDAGwAFnvv_zsJv05wYNoIKDN8qHyVlNy2UjZSi_dQ6LdOuUCUhPZVYH&s=n2Fy5dfMg5vvrj4kkhh7admLKD0o64ArU-OIQaA7lvg&e=> on similar terms. My point is that "@KieProperty" ->must have<- javadoc with proper description, to be available also in generated javadocs. And I was thinking to re-use such javadoc also for documentation purposes. So, a specific "description" metadata would be redundant, IMO. Does that make sense? I would provide the other ones, in the meantime, making them optional to speed-up a bit this first iteration. Thanks again! Gabriele On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 8:26 PM Jijo Thomas K via dev <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, 19 June 2026 at 5:03 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: soniya abraham <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, 19 June 2026 at 3:48 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[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=
