It's good to keep that feature in mind but I don't think macro developers will have a lot of time to develop their own insertion screen. We should focus our priority more on having the right list of "field types" in the definition system for macros.
On this subject here are my comments with a general +1 on the dialog: 0/ This system should support velocity macros right from the start. This is the easiest way to write macros. We should even have a page in the admin to manage the libraries (including the velocity macros) and add a new one using a simple form. This would create a descriptor for the library/macros and make the macro available right from the start. This is a good way to make XWiki extensible. We could even have a button to propose the macro for inclusing on http://code.xwiki.org. And the macro system should be connected to the Application Manager or better name Extension Manager. 1/ Should category be category or should it be library (corresponding to a set of macros provided by a installable library). Or should we have both ? For the sake of simplicity I think we could only have library and then introduce a category later (but how is the category list managed). 2/ There should be a nice description for the library/category and a link to documentation. This can appear as a toolip or it could be possible to click on the category/library and the next screen would show the list of macros with the description of the macro and at the top the description of the category/library. The category/library could have a screenshot or icon for visual indentification. 3/ There should be a description for each macro. This can appear as a tooltip. 4/ Each param of a macro should have a description, a name, a pretty name (language based), a default value and wether it is required. The default value can be displayed under the field. 5/ The non editable macro bloc in the wysiwyg that would show the result in wysiwyg is cool but could be a phase 2 feature. 6/ Even double clicking to reedit is a phase 2 feature. Ludovic Jerome Velociter a écrit : > +1 for the general layout. > > As a side note, I'd like we consider introducing a hook for macros to > provide their own insertion dialog (in place of the generic 2bis). This > would allow to have restrictions on parameter combinations. (for > example: user can define a value for param2 only if param1 has been set > to a specific value - this is the case for the map macro : we could say > width and height parameters are meaningless unless the size parameter > has been set to "custom"). I suppose we could also define those rules in > the rendering with new annotations and still use a generic dialog, but > it would probably be overkill compared to custom dialogs provided by the > macro itself. > Anyway, just an idea. > > Jerome. > > Jean-Vincent Drean wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've made a mockup for the macro dialog in the WYSIWYG editor : >> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Mockups/WebHome/MacroDialogs.png >> >> I've assumed that using a tree to browse macros was : >> - Scalable. >> - Consistent with link dialogs. >> Shout if you think about another way of displaying them. >> >> Note that the second dialog is generated dynamically and will vary a >> lot according to macros needs (see 2 bis), its layout must remain as >> simple as possible. >> >> Here's my +1. >> >> JV. >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > -- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
