deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:18:03 GMT
Yea no worries, we just dump ideas onto one big fat stack and then we go through each idea.
So if you have another idea, then just drop it - even if it sounds wild at first.


LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 8:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
> 
> I like this idea, but we are straying from the "guidelines" that the 
> spec has laid down for naming - that in general "provided" annotations 
> don't have members, and that the annotation should basically make sense in a 
> sentence.
> 
> If we can rectify this, but keep the idea, I'm +1. Unfortunately, I'm 
> out of ideas on how achieve this ;-) I will try to mull it over tonight.
> 
> On 3 Jan 2012, at 17:19, Mark Struberg wrote:
> 
>>  Sitting together with Gerhard we had another idea.
>> 
>>  What do you think about unifying all this stuff 
>> 
>> 
>>  @Veto
>> 
>>  @Veto(projectStage=UnitTest.class)
>> 
>>  @Veto(notInProjectStage=Production.class)
>> 
>>  @Veto(expression="myproperty=myValue")
>> 
>> 
>>  (independent on the final name of @Veto)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Instead of having projectStage and notInProjectStage as explicit annotation 
> values, we could also move this to a string based expression 
>>  For example
>>  @Veto("projectStage=Production")
>>  The downside is that we would loose the type safety, thus I don't 
> really like it.
>> 
>>  WDYT?
>> 
>>  LieGrue,
>>  strub + os890
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>  From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>>>  To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
> <deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>  Cc: 
>>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 2:48 PM
>>>  Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
>>> 
>>>  Back then we also had a few discussions about this very topic.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  We did choose @ProjectStageActivated and @ExpressionActivated, because 
> the beans 
>>>  are not 'actived by this expression' but 'only active on 
> this 
>>>  expression'
>>> 
>>>  Any @Alternative @ActivatedByExtression public class MyBean 
>>>  will _not_ get automatically enabled, but _still_ needs the 
> <alternatives> 
>>>  entry in beans.xml!
>>> 
>>>  @ActivatedByExpression and @ActivatedByProjectStage (or the equivalent 
> ..On...) 
>>>  imo implies a bit too much.
>>> 
>>>  Actually it's rather the other way around. A bean will _not_ get 
> _vetoed_ if 
>>>  the underlying expression resolves to 'true' ;)
>>> 
>>>  So I'm +0.8 for @ExpressionActivated and -0.2 against 
>>>  @ActivatedByExpression. Imo the @ActivatedOnExpression is a bit better, 
> so +0.2 
>>>  for it.
>>> 
>>>  LieGrue,
>>>  strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>>  From: Peter Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
>>>>  To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
>>>  <deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>  Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
>>>  <deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 2:18 PM
>>>>  Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
>>>> 
>>>>  I would prefer @activatedonexpression, it fits better with the 
> spec. 
>>>> 
>>>>  As an alternative, what about @ActivatedByExpression which to me 
> reads 
>>>  better.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  --
>>>>  Pete Muir
>>>>  http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>>>> 
>>>>  On 2 Jan 2012, at 05:34, Jason Porter 
> <lightguard.jp@gmail.com> 
>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>    +1 for @ActivatedOnExpression. It reads better which goes a 
> long way 
>>>  for 
>>>>  easy to use, self documenting code. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>>    On Jan 1, 2012, at 17:57, Gerhard Petracek 
>>>>  <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>    hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    please send your opinion about the name 
> (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>>>>>    @ExpressionActivated).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    thx & regards,
>>>>>>    gerhard
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth 
> <christian@kaltepoth.de>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    +1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici 
>>>  <marius.bogoevici@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>    +1
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    On 2011-12-19, at 8:28 AM, Gerhard Petracek 
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    hi @ all,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    fyi: please check [1] before you answer.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    [2] provides a short introduction as well as 
> the basic 
>>> 
>>>>  usage.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    the basic concept:
>>>>>>>>>    via the annotation @ExpressionActivated 
> it's 
>>>  possible 
>>>>  to veto bean
>>>>>>>>>    implementations based on the given 
> expression.
>>>>>>>>>    it's possible to change the supported 
> syntax via 
>>>  an 
>>>>  optional
>>>>>>>>>    ExpressionInterpreter.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    please send
>>>>>>>>>    +1, +0 or -1 because...
>>>>>>>>>    for the basic idea as well as the basic 
> concept.
>>>>>>>>>    if there are >basic< objections, please 
> also add 
>>>  them 
>>>>  to [3]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    regards,
>>>>>>>>>    gerhard
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    [1] 
> http://markmail.org/message/7yefspfuvtz4jvmp
>>>>>>>>>    [2]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EXTCDI/Core+Usage#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>>>>>>>>>    [3]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    --
>>>>>>>    Christian Kaltepoth
>>>>>>>    Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>    Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 

Mime
View raw message