Mailing-List: contact deltaspike-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.de;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=mGtPVT7DagvDGAVpZGWoYXYccbtQ+rwEAlnimSIQ0Y6OVOyTCJUP6xfAXOi6Vr4Wp+QW1dH5CCT79vUklj0VMYMq3zrGeMeVHTFvKMggwmt2zY1yJQUsEWdKujkKwau6XQV+9HoNNV/egqeHgvtWSxjnyMc9pJOwcq9qtr2jTuE=;
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>
 <CAP9Xh4Sz2mkHkThHUJXjcXyBm_Ju7WSEotQ2QedMAm0SUEvdHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGJtJfH-AN3guN2Y-0UrTDTk0+8GLy2DW711CvJRZmzt_3+Cnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1618E0CE-7890-448B-8732-DC48788F7358@gmail.com>
 <D09D049B-3D75-4925-B6C9-3840E9AFA251@gmail.com>
 <CAGJtJfFDMzWY+p8LOHu_NTog8BoZDrceioWUQdjQ4LFadNsdwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOqetn_O5xzYvcCu8cLi7+h0FrLo=v-c1CPfY5YTO9-w5N2kig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGJtJfEPFJCjzrC6Q67gGSpr0xLD+6pozRkG_Wz9wc_QCnQXhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1325057945.21235.YahooMailNeo@web27806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:39:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Reply-To: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto
To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
 <deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGJtJfEPFJCjzrC6Q67gGSpr0xLD+6pozRkG_Wz9wc_QCnQXhA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

hmm, what about @Typed() ? :)=0A=0AI think that was the exact reason why we=
 intentionally left it out originally ;)=0A=0ALieGrue,=0Astrub=0A=0A=0A=0A-=
---- Original Message -----=0A> From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gm=
ail.com>=0A> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org=0A> Cc: =0A> Sent: Wed=
nesday, December 28, 2011 1:50 AM=0A> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8]=
 @Veto=0A> =0A> hi john,=0A> =0A> the basic contract is still the same (the=
 implementation will be the=0A> implementation which is currently available=
 in seam3) - just the name is=0A> more expressive.=0A> =0A> regards,=0A> ge=
rhard=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> 2011/12/28 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>=
=0A> =0A>>  Unmanaged sounds a little confusing.=A0 this simply represents =
the default=0A>>  implementation of the bean, correct?=A0 so an app develop=
er can create a=0A>>  manual producer... right?=0A>> =0A>>  On Tue, Dec 27,=
 2011 at 7:24 PM, Gerhard Petracek <=0A>>  gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrot=
e:=0A>> =0A>>  > +1 for @Unmanaged=0A>>  > (+1 for @Exclude if it's the onl=
y alternative we can agree on)=0A>>  >=0A>>  > regards,=0A>>  > gerhard=0A>=
>  >=0A>>  >=0A>>  >=0A>>  > 2011/12/28 Marius Bogoevici <marius.bogoevici@=
gmail.com>=0A>>  >=0A>>  > > As if we didn't have enough alternatives, here=
's another =0A> one that=0A>>  popped=0A>>  > > up while discussing with Ge=
rhard the relative merits of @Veto and=0A>>  > @Exclude:=0A>>  > >=0A>>  > =
> @Unmanaged=0A>>  > >=0A>>  > > I think that this solves a few problems th=
at we currently have:=0A>>  > >=0A>>  > > a) @Veto is technically accurate,=
 but not intuitive (and requires =0A> an=0A>>  > > understanding of class p=
rocessing, which is not a user concern)=0A>>  > > b) @Exclude is intuitive =
when considered in the context of =0A> scanning but=0A>>  > > it's a bit un=
clear on a larger scale - 'what exactly is =0A> this class=0A>>  > excluded=
=0A>>  > > from?' - the=0A>>  > > c) the annotation must be applicable to p=
ackages=0A>>  > >=0A>>  > > IMO, @Unmanaged describes best what happens to =
the class: it will =0A> *not*=0A>>  > > generate a managed bean automatical=
ly. It is very similar to =0A> @NoBean=0A>>  > early=0A>>  > > suggested by=
 Gerhard, but works on packages too, and it describes =0A> a=0A>>  > qualit=
y=0A>>  > > of the annotated item, in the same way as @Transient stands for=
 =0A> "not=0A>>  > > serialized".=0A>>  > >=0A>>  > > On 2011-12-27, at 5:4=
3 PM, Marius Bogoevici wrote:=0A>>  > >=0A>>  > > > +1 @Veto=0A>>  > > >=0A=
>>  > > > -1 @Exclude=0A>>  > > >=0A>>  > > > @Veto has a very narrow meani=
ng, and hints to=0A>>  > > ProcessAnnotatedType.veto(), which is precisely =
what happens to =0A> such=0A>>  > > annotated types. I have mixed feelings =
about @Exclude - I'd =0A> rather not=0A>>  > > introduce a new term, especi=
ally one that does not immediately =0A> make you=0A>>  > > think of CDI pro=
cessing.=0A>>  > > >=0A>>  > > >=0A>>  > > > On 2011-12-26, at 6:41 PM, Ger=
hard Petracek wrote:=0A>>  > > >=0A>>  > > >> it looks like @Exclude is the=
 alternative which would =0A> work for=0A>>  several=0A>>  > > of=0A>>  > >=
 >> us.=0A>>  > > >> -> we have to choose between @Exclude and @Vote=0A>>  =
> > >>=0A>>  > > >> +1 for @Exclude=0A>>  > > >>=0A>>  > > >> regards,=0A>>=
  > > >> gerhard=0A>>  > > >>=0A>>  > > >>=0A>>  > > >>=0A>>  > > >> 2011/1=
2/26 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com>=0A>>  > > >>=0A>>  > > >>> +1 =
to @Veto and @Exclude=0A>>  > > >>>=0A>>  > > >>> Also I agree with Pete's =
comments about the =0A> other suggestions.=0A>>  > > >>>=0A>>  > > >>> Rega=
rds,=0A>>  > > >>> Jakob=0A>>  > > >>>=0A>>  > > >>> 2011/12/24 Pete Muir <=
pmuir@redhat.com>:=0A>>  > > >>>> We chose @Veto originally, as it didn't =
=0A> deviate from the spec's=0A>>  > veto()=0A>>  > > >>> method, so should=
 be less of a learning curve. I =0A> don't like=0A>>  > > @Deactivate as=0A=
>>  > > >>> it makes it sound like you have to activate other =0A> beans. @=
Ignore is=0A>>  > too=0A>>  > > >>> overloaded a term for me to be comforta=
ble with it=0A>>  > (@IgnoreWarnings). I=0A>>  > > >>> like @Exclude as it'=
s closest to what makes most =0A> intuitive sense.=0A>>  > > >>>>=0A>>  > >=
 >>>> On 24 Dec 2011, at 09:33, Christian Kaltepoth =0A> wrote:=0A>>  > > >=
>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>> Perhaps we should build a list of all =0A> suggestions =
and then start=0A>>  a=0A>>  > > >>>>> vote which one to use.=0A>>  > > >>>=
>>=0A>>  > > >>>>> I think these are the names that were =0A> suggested:=0A=
>>  > > >>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>> @Veto=0A>>  > > >>>>> @Skip=0A>>  > > >>>>> @=
Exclude=0A>>  > > >>>>> @Deactivate=0A>>  > > >>>>> @Ignore=0A>>  > > >>>>>=
=0A>>  > > >>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>> 2011/12/23 Gerhard Petrace=
k =0A> <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>:=0A>>  > > >>>>>> hi arne,=0A>>  > > >>=
>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>> would be also ok for me -> +1=0A>>  > > >>>>>>=0A>>  =
> > >>>>>> regards,=0A>>  > > >>>>>> gerhard=0A>>  > > >>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>=
>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>> 2011/12/23 Arne Limburg =0A> <arne.limburg@openknowled=
ge.de>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> What about @Exclude?=0A>>  > > >>=
>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> Cheers,=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> Arne=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=0A=
>>  > > >>>>>>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> Von: =
Gerhard Petracek =0A> [mailto:gerhard.petracek@gmail.com]=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=
 Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011 =0A> 21:28=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> An: =0A>=
 deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUS=
S] =0A> [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> +0.5 for @=
Skip=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> as mentioned in the original thread =0A> @Veto is ac=
curate from a=0A>>  > > technical=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> perspective, but it sou=
nds strange =0A> for users who aren't aware=0A>>  of=0A>>  > > the=0A>>  > =
> >>>>>>> mechanism behind.=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> if we are t=
alking only about @Veto =0A> vs @Skip and not about the=0A>>  > other=0A>> =
 > > >>>>>>> alternatives: +1 for @Skip=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=
 regards,=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> gerhard=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=0A>=
>  > > >>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> 2011/12/23 Dan Allen =0A> <dan.j.allen@gma=
il.com>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> Veto is rationally the most =
=0A> appropriate since it directly=0A>>  > > translates=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> =
to calling =0A> ProcessAnnotatedType#veto()=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>=
>>>>>> However, I'd like to offer =0A> one other alternative:=0A>>  > > >>>=
>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> @Skip=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> While =
veto describes what the =0A> extension is doing internally,=0A>>  > skip=0A=
>>  > > is=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> how the developer perceives the =0A> result o=
f the action. The=0A>>  class=0A>>  > is=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> "skipped over" =
during =0A> the scanning process. This is similar to=0A>>  > the=0A>>  > > =
>>>>>>>> suggestion @Ignore, and I think =0A> both would get the point=0A>>=
  across=0A>>  > > >>> equally=0A>>  > > >>>>>>> well.=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>>=
=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> -Dan=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> p.s. Apologi=
zes for dropping the =0A> rest of the thread. I wasn't=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> r=
eceiving messages when this =0A> thread started.=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>>=0A>>  >=
 > >>>>>>>> --=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> Dan Allen=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> Principal So=
ftware Engineer, Red =0A> Hat | Author of Seam in=0A>>  Action=0A>>  > > >>=
>>>>>> Registered Linux User #231597=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> =
=0A> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> ht=
tp://mojavelinux.com=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>> =0A> http://mojavelinux.com/seamina=
ction=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>>=
=0A>>  > > >>>>>=0A>>  > > >>>>> --=0A>>  > > >>>>> Christian Kaltepoth=0A>=
>  > > >>>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/=0A>>  > > >>>>> Twitter: http=
://twitter.com/chkal=0A>>  > > >>>>=0A>>  > > >>>=0A>>  > > >>>=0A>>  > > >=
>>=0A>>  > > >>> --=0A>>  > > >>> Jakob Korherr=0A>>  > > >>>=0A>>  > > >>>=
 blog: http://www.jakobk.com=0A>>  > > >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/jako=
bkorherr=0A>>  > > >>> work: http://www.irian.at=0A>>  > > >>>=0A>>  > > >=
=0A>>  > >=0A>>  > >=0A>>  >=0A>> =0A>