@a (in general): just because there is an existing name doesn't mean that it is the best we can get (that's also true for names used in codi)
@b: i hope the cdi 1.1 version works differently (imo: instead of calling #veto such a bean should be ignored at all -> not even passed to a cdi extension) ->there would be a difference behaviour furthermore, in our proposal we mentioned: "The goal of Apache DeltaSpike ... and to act as an incubator for features that may eventually become part of the various Java SE and EE-related specifications ..." in this case that could also mean that we found a better name for it which can be used by cdi 1.1 as well. regards, gerhard 2011/12/27 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > +1 for @Veto > > > a.) because it's already established in Seam3 -> easier to transit Seam > projects > b.) because this will also be used in the CDI-1.1 spec itself [1]. Thus > users will be familiar with it. > > LieGrue, > strub > > [1] > https://github.com/pmuir/cdi/blob/479e144ccfa0235faf5662355d02a7fe5f6725f6/api/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/Veto.java > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto > > > > 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 > >> > > >
