+1 for @Veto or @Ignore +0 for @Deactivate. I like the concept of putting @Veto on a package (to veto all my JPA entities for instance)
Antoine Le 15 déc. 2011 à 18:26, Matthias Wessendorf a écrit : > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hmm, I think @Veto is perfectly fine, because all it does is: >> ProcessAnnotatedType#veto() isn't? > > +1 on @Veto; > perhaps @Ignore ?! > >> >> 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... > > uh... that's not a general statement, eh ? :) >> >> >> ----- 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 >>>> >>> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
