deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto
Date Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:41:57 GMT
it looks like @Exclude is the alternative which would work for several of
us.
-> we have to choose between @Exclude and @Vote

+1 for @Exclude

regards,
gerhard



2011/12/26 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com>

> +1 to @Veto and @Exclude
>
> Also I agree with Pete's comments about the other suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Jakob
>
> 2011/12/24 Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>:
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jakob Korherr
>
> blog: http://www.jakobk.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
> work: http://www.irian.at
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message