Hmm, I think @Veto is perfectly fine, because all it does is: ProcessAnnotatedType#veto() isn't?
LieGrue, strub PS: we decided to not add it to codi because @Typed() does roughly the same and doesn't add any Extension overhead. But actually I don't care much about 5ms more... ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:36 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto > > we discussed such a feature for codi and didn't add it because of @Typed() > > @jason: > imo @Veto is the wrong name (if there is no real veto) > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2011/12/14 Jason Porter <[email protected]> > >> Sort of, it doesn't really veto the bean though. You could still inject > it >> by using the concrete type. >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 13:24, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > Of course, the CDI-1.0 way to do this out of the box would be a >> > >> > @Typed() >> > >> > It has a bit a different mechanic, but basically serves the same goal. >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > From: Jason Porter <[email protected]> >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Cc: >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:05 PM >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto >> > > >> > > As per [1] we're discussing the top features from both CODI > (core) and >> > > Solder. >> > > >> > > This issue is for @Veto [2] from Solder. >> > > >> > > Basic idea: >> > > Provide an easy way for application developers to veto beans in > their >> > > application. Of course users could create their own Extension and > veto >> > that >> > > way, this does all the boilerplate for them. All the users need > to do >> is >> > > annotate the bean(s), or the package in package-info.java and the >> bean(s) >> > > (all in the package if annotated at the package level) will be > vetoed. >> > > >> > > The suggestion is to keep the feature as it currently stands, >> > essentially a >> > > copy / paste (package name change) from Solder. >> > > >> > > Please send +1 +0 -1 for this proposal. >> > > >> > > If you have *basic* objections please add them to [3] >> > > >> > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/7yefspfuvtz4jvmp >> > > [2] >> > > >> > >> > http://docs.jboss.org/seam/3/3.1.0.CR1/reference/en-US/html/solder-programmingmodel.html#d0e338 >> > > [3] >> > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking >> > > -- >> > > Jason Porter >> > > http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com >> > > http://twitter.com/lightguardjp >> > > >> > > Software Engineer >> > > Open Source Advocate >> > > Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling >> > > >> > > PGP key id: 926CCFF5 >> > > PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jason Porter >> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com >> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp >> >> Software Engineer >> Open Source Advocate >> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling >> >> PGP key id: 926CCFF5 >> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu >> >
