deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cody Lerum <cody.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto
Date Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:23:45 GMT
Altering my vote to @Exclude as it seems more intuitive

+1 @Exclude
-1 @Veto

1. I would like to see CDI 1.1 adopt the same same if possible.
2. My impression from the user forums is that @Veto in solder has been
lightly used outside of module development. The impact of renaming
during the conversion to DeltaSpike would have minimal impact to end
users and offset by the a more intuitive name going forward.

-C

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Cody Lerum <cody.lerum@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for @Veto
>
> Alignment with the CDI spec makes sense.
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> +1 for @Veto
>>
>>
>> a.) because it's already established in Seam3 -> easier to transit Seam projects
>> b.) because this will also be used in the CDI-1.1 spec itself [1]. Thus users will
be familiar with it.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/pmuir/cdi/blob/479e144ccfa0235faf5662355d02a7fe5f6725f6/api/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/Veto.java
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>> -----Ursprüngliche 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
View raw message