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] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:47:38 GMT
+1 to drop, I hate them.

On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <christian@kaltepoth.de> wrote:

> +1 for dropping
> 
> 
> 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <cody.lerum@gmail.com>
> 
>> drop em.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays. So this
>> is
>>> just superfluous.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
>>>> 
>>>> hi @ all,
>>>> 
>>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for all
>>>> our
>>>> annotations within a package.
>>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains
>>>> annotations.
>>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package
>>>> "annotation".
>>>> 
>>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
>>>> package
>>>> and some don't)
>>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
>>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
>>>> 
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal


Mime
View raw message