deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de>
Subject AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto
Date Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:34:24 GMT
What about @Exclude?

Cheers,
Arne

-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petracek@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011 21:28
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto

+0.5 for @Skip
as mentioned in the original thread @Veto is accurate from a technical perspective, but it
sounds strange for users who aren't aware of the mechanism behind.

if we are talking only about @Veto vs @Skip and not about the other
alternatives: +1 for @Skip

regards,
gerhard



2011/12/23 Dan Allen <dan.j.allen@gmail.com>

> Veto is rationally the most appropriate since it directly translates 
> to calling ProcessAnnotatedType#veto()
>
> However, I'd like to offer one other alternative:
>
> @Skip
>
> While veto describes what the extension is doing internally, skip is 
> how the developer perceives the result of the action. The class is 
> "skipped over" during the scanning process. This is similar to the 
> suggestion @Ignore, and I think both would get the point across equally well.
>
> -Dan
>
> p.s. Apologizes for dropping the rest of the thread. I wasn't 
> receiving messages when this thread started.
>
> --
> Dan Allen
> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action 
> Registered Linux User #231597
>
> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>

Mime
View raw message