On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/15/2012 06:21 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >> >> Hi devs, >> >> I'd like to extend the set of property types available in the AWM >> class editor (the field palette) and I'm not sure where is the best >> place to do this: in the Java code (oldcore) or in the wiki. I prefer >> the wiki. Let me explain. >> >> We recently added two new property types in the oldcore: email and >> page. If you look at these two you'll see that email is just a string >> property with a default validation regexp and page is just a dblist >> property. >> >> The AWM class editor has a system that lets you define property >> 'templates' in the wiki. To define the email property type I could do >> this: >> >> * create AppWithinMinutes.Email xclass with a single String property >> (the 'template') >> * set the validation regexp to match an email address (but I can set >> other meta properties as well with *default* values) >> * add an object of type AppWithinMinutes.FormFieldClass to >> AppWithinMinutes.Email to specify (among other things) the list of >> meta properties that should be visible in the class editor. For >> instance, I'd like to hide the validation regexp. >> >> At this point the AWM class editor will detect the email property type >> and list it in the field palette and you can add it to your class. The >> only problem is that when editing the class back the editor doesn't >> have yet a way to determine what was the template used to add the >> property so it uses the default one, the one for the String property >> in this case. >> >> So my question is: do you think it's good to be able to define new >> property types from the wiki (e.g. Image, Attachment, Color, etc.) or >> should they all be written in Java? If the answer is Wiki, then I'll >> think of a way to store the reference to the property template so that >> the AWM class editor can edit back using the right template. >> >> Note that it crossed my mind to define a property type component that >> can be implemented both from Java and from the wiki but transforming >> the oldcore code that handles objects/properties into components is >> very difficult. >> > > If a property type makes sense, it should be available without using AWM, > thus it should be a standard property type defined in Java. > > To introduce some components in the way properties are handled, I think that > it might be enough to convert just the *MetaClass classes (from > com.xpn.xwiki.objects.meta) into components, with > com.xpn.xwiki.objects.meta.MetaClass updated to replace the static > initialization with a component list lookup. Actual property classes are > created by their corresponding *MetaClass, and actual properties are created > by their corresponding *PropertyClass, so they don't have to be touched.
+1 for introducing components for this. Once you have components it's easy to either use wiki component or introduce a special bridge to define new classes in the wiki. > -- > Sergiu Dumitriu > http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
