+1 for @Deactivate +0 for the others regards, gerhard
2011/12/14 Jason Porter <[email protected]> > On IRC I suggested @Deactivate, just to keep all the information here on > the list. > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 14:31, Gerhard Petracek > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > ok - i thought you mean it differently. > > > > however, in our discussion for codi i also didn't like the name (@Veto) a > > lot because it sounds strange for users who aren't aware of the concept > of > > #veto. > > > > the suggestions were: > > @Ignore > > @Ignored > > @NoBean > > but we couldn't agree on one name and since @Typed() worked for us we > > didn't continue with it. > > > > since @Veto of seam-solder supports packages as well it's a different > > situation and e.g. @NoBean doesn't fit. > > > > -> +1 for adding it and +0 for keeping the name > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > 2011/12/14 Jason Porter <[email protected]> > > > > > Yep, that's all @Veto does. At the class level @Typed() works fine for > > me, > > > perhaps different from a user's point of view, but not a big deal. > @Veto > > > will work at a package level though. Do we feel like it's an important > > > feature? > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 13:56, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 >
