+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 >> >
