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

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

    Brian Fitzpatrick Expert

      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.)

      PhzKk.jpg

      Here's a happy value substitution:

      rIpFN.jpg

      And a happy numeric value:

      EO2Ka.jpg

       

      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?