it looks like @Exclude is the alternative which would work for several of us. -> we have to choose between @Exclude and @Vote
+1 for @Exclude regards, gerhard 2011/12/26 Jakob Korherr <[email protected]> > +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 >
