[rcernich]

Hey Brian,

Quick question - how did they get it into this state?

I'm guessing the wizard comes up and the list of transformer type pairs appears pre-populated. Do only pairs without existing transformers appear?

The wizard only shows the required, non-existing transformer pairs.  In this case, the pairs represent Java->XML and XML->Java.

Does the validation occur when the transformer type pair is selected? I'm guessing that the lower part of the wizard page changes based on that selection?

Validation is dynamic and occurs after initialization and after any change to the settings on the dialog.

Also, keep in mind, this new wizard allows you to create the underlying resources that implement the transformations.  For this screenshot, it would be an XSL file with a "match" for the from and an element declaration for the "to."  For a Java transformer, it would be a Java class with a method stubbed out for each pair.

As the screenshot for XSLT shows, you can also specify an existing file.  This is not supported for Java as annotations are required, which means existing transformers would be picked up automatically (i.e. if they're required and you're using Java, they must not exist).

I can post screenshots for all the different flavors, although the only one not show is Smooks, which isn't very interesting.  (You have to specify an existing fiile and it only supports a single transformer pair.  Also, it automatically detects the type (Java2XML, XML2Java, Smooks), which should be accurate most of the time.  If the type needs to be changed, it can be changed in the properties.  I believe Smooks should be able to support multiple transformer declarations, but that would require work in the engine and some tweaks to the configuration model.)

The changes can be found here: https://github.com/rcernich/tools/tree/SWITCHYARD-783

Best,

Rob

[rcernich]

One other thing, I've toyed with the idea of showing all the transformer pairs, including the defined pairs, but thought that might clutter the dialog.  This is intended to be invoked in the context of a connection (add missing required transformers for the selected service interaction) or the composite (add missing required transformers for all service interactions).  The functionality in the properties view will be unchanged.

[rcernich]

Also, how do you like the way I've changed the way the types are displayed? Yea? Nea?

SimpleName {namespace/package}

[bfitzpat]

I'm good with the minimal list that only applies to the connection. Just wasn't sure where this guy was coming up.

And yes, I like the type display - does simplify things and get it out there.

[kcbabo]

Putting the local name first was a great idea. 

Rob Cernich wrote:

I've add validation to the selected transform pairs as described above (e.g. XSLT does not support transforms to/from Java types) and have modified the text in the table.  Let me know what you think.

[kcbabo]

If the idea is that this is for 'adding' transformers, then I agree that existing pairs should not be included.  We don't support duplicate transformation pairs, so an add dialog should not give the user that type of option.

Rob Cernich wrote:

One other thing, I've toyed with the idea of showing all the transformer pairs, including the defined pairs, but thought that might clutter the dialog.  This is intended to be invoked in the context of a connection (add missing required transformers for the selected service interaction) or the composite (add missing required transformers for all service interactions).  The functionality in the properties view will be unchanged.