+1 to @Veto and @Exclude Also I agree with Pete's comments about the other suggestions.
Regards, Jakob 2011/12/24 Pete Muir <[email protected]>: > We chose @Veto originally, as it didn't deviate from the spec's veto() > method, so should be less of a learning curve. I don't like @Deactivate as it > makes it sound like you have to activate other beans. @Ignore is too > overloaded a term for me to be comfortable with it (@IgnoreWarnings). I like > @Exclude as it's closest to what makes most intuitive sense. > > On 24 Dec 2011, at 09:33, Christian Kaltepoth wrote: > >> Perhaps we should build a list of all suggestions and then start a >> vote which one to use. >> >> I think these are the names that were suggested: >> >> @Veto >> @Skip >> @Exclude >> @Deactivate >> @Ignore >> >> >> >> 2011/12/23 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: >>> hi arne, >>> >>> would be also ok for me -> +1 >>> >>> regards, >>> gerhard >>> >>> >>> 2011/12/23 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> >>> >>>> What about @Exclude? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Arne >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011 21:28 >>>> An: [email protected] >>>> Betreff: 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 >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Christian Kaltepoth >> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/ >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal > -- Jakob Korherr blog: http://www.jakobk.com twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr work: http://www.irian.at
