deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto
Date Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:37:00 GMT
We chose @Veto originally, as it didn't deviate from the spec's veto() method, so should be
less of a learning curve. I don't like @Deactivate as it makes it sound like you have to activate
other beans. @Ignore is too overloaded a term for me to be comfortable with it (@IgnoreWarnings).
I like @Exclude as it's closest to what makes most intuitive sense.

On 24 Dec 2011, at 09:33, Christian Kaltepoth wrote:

> Perhaps we should build a list of all suggestions and then start a
> vote which one to use.
> 
> I think these are the names that were suggested:
> 
> @Veto
> @Skip
> @Exclude
> @Deactivate
> @Ignore
> 
> 
> 
> 2011/12/23 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>:
>> hi arne,
>> 
>> would be also ok for me -> +1
>> 
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>> 
>> 
>> 2011/12/23 Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>
>> 
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal


Mime
View raw message