+0.5 for @Skip as mentioned in the original thread @Veto is accurate from a technical perspective, but it sounds strange for users who aren't aware of the mechanism behind.
if we are talking only about @Veto vs @Skip and not about the other alternatives: +1 for @Skip regards, gerhard 2011/12/23 Dan Allen <[email protected]> > Veto is rationally the most appropriate since it directly translates to > calling ProcessAnnotatedType#veto() > > However, I'd like to offer one other alternative: > > @Skip > > While veto describes what the extension is doing internally, skip is how > the developer perceives the result of the action. The class is "skipped > over" during the scanning process. This is similar to the suggestion > @Ignore, and I think both would get the point across equally well. > > -Dan > > p.s. Apologizes for dropping the rest of the thread. I wasn't receiving > messages when this thread started. > > -- > Dan Allen > Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action > Registered Linux User #231597 > > http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about > http://mojavelinux.com > http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction >
