+1 for @Veto because Seam3 users are already aware of it. That doesn't mean that I don't like @Skip, but I see no real benefit, and it would be harder for Seam3 users to move migrate.
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto > > +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 >> >
