2 Replies Latest reply on Apr 11, 2014 1:59 PM by bfitzpat

    How do we decorate "escapable" property fields in the tooling?


      Ok folks... Next question.


      We have multiple properties for bindings that can be substituted using the "Escaped Property" method (${prop} or $${prop}, etc. as described here in the docs).


      I've put together a couple of field-level validators that can check for the proper escape syntax and make sure that a value is actually a numeric value (BigInteger courtesy of EMF in this case). Here's an example screen shot of an incorrect field value for Delay on the Camel File binding... (And yes, I will include the field name in the message to clarify which "value" I'm referring to - this is just an example.)


      Here's a happy value substitution:


      And a happy numeric value:



      At present there is no easy way to indicate which fields CAN be substituted in this method. Anybody have any ideas on a way to decorate a field's label to show that it can be substituted? It would drive me nuts as a user to have to try entering unique data in each field to identify those I could swap out. And I don't know how many of them will go directly to the schemas to identify the propInteger, propLong, propBoolean, and propertyValue fields from that angle.


      We currently put a little asterisk "*" beside those fields that are required. Perhaps a hat "^" or a dollar sign "$" might hint at available property substitution? My worry with the $ is that it might be misconstrued as a typo in the label rather than a hint as to available functionality. Since this affects all the different escapable properties (and they're scattered throughout all the bindings), we need a solution that applies across the board if at all possible. Few folks really like Easter Egg hunts.


      Any ideas?