Mailing-List: contact deltaspike-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sethfromaustria@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sethfromaustria@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <B7B3A3BB-DB5A-4D26-BED6-537230263BC8@redhat.com>
References: 
 <CAKeHnO73GX8ysLeV07Efsy3cutEp-cv8iBPMgS3KeVHXowYMhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGJtJfFKCvqyBM5tWQT0K5R=BZ47ZoRkULjsBtbkoMs8KtR4jQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111223203311.541E01649B1@mx01.openknowledge.de>
	<CAGJtJfGUDEteMifPVPj++zTyecf_U2URLsx-1LFmG6Z-3pTeOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6xivQ_Orm=Q+V=Qr_uozpcz2kd-V-if+6Pjwa7G6UvWAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B7B3A3BB-DB5A-4D26-BED6-537230263BC8@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:59:13 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAP9Xh4Sz2mkHkThHUJXjcXyBm_Ju7WSEotQ2QedMAm0SUEvdHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto
From: Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com>
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+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() me=
thod, 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 overl=
oaded a term for me to be comfortable with it (@IgnoreWarnings). I like @Ex=
clude 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=C3=BCngliche 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 equal=
ly
>>>> 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
>


--=20
Jakob Korherr

blog: http://www.jakobk.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
work: http://www.irian.at