IDE Minutes 2008-04-29
- Kevin Hakman, Aptana
- Jon Ferraiolo, IBM
- Phil Berkland, IBM
- Ted Thibodeau, OpenLink
- Stew Nicholas, IBM
- Lori Hylan-Cho, Adobe
- Bertrand Le Roy, Microsoft
- Rich Thompson, IBM
Discussion of enum tag proposed by Bertrand. This would be a top level tag containing options tag for reusable enum. No-one objects to the new tag
DECISION: enum tag will go into api metadata
Jon: Should this also go for widgets
DECISION: enum tag will go into widget metadata
can enum have a 'type'?
Jon: is a enum always a string
Lori: what about a range of numbers
Jon: if property is boolean, does tools have to convert value to boolean
Bertrand: the runtime will evaluate the value
Kevin: will have to have indicate type so can know a zip code 09021 doesn't have leading 0 removed
Kevin: a property will have a type attribute, an options element can be a child property, each option has a label and value, the value attribute is optional, if values are provided, they will be assumed to be the type.
Jon: in the enum reference case, type is enum so it cant be a value type like string
Bertrand: enum element has both a name attribute and a type attribute, so type is specified by enum
Rich: when should we use id instead of name to insure uniqueness
Jon: we should stay away from xml ids, too many problems, for one, to be correct id should really be xml:id also how do we reference types in other files?
can a widget file reference another metadata file?
Kevin: how is this handled in gadgets
Stew: we have been keeping it simple, so far options just strings
Jon: gadgets would have single xml, ide would have multiple xml files
Phil: Similar to enums being shared, should we also share type combinations instead of respecifiy
Jon: for apis should be handles, can have empty class with type having type combination
more discussion of shared metadata files for widgets
DECISION: Widget metadata has the ability to reference other metadata files
Jon: will need to flesh out this proposal
moved on to discussion of widget metadata issues:
Jon: gadget taskforce discussed using @@bar@@ to indicate localized value, could this be used also for macro expansion values
Kevin: these are 2 different workflows, one for localization and the other for inserting values specified by user
agreement these should be treated differently
discussion on what delimiters should be
Tentative agreement that delimiters will be %% and @@, call ended without firm decision.