hmm, what about @Typed() ? :) I think that was the exact reason why we intentionally left it out originally ;)
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 1:50 AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto > > hi john, > > the basic contract is still the same (the implementation will be the > implementation which is currently available in seam3) - just the name is > more expressive. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2011/12/28 John D. Ament <[email protected]> > >> Unmanaged sounds a little confusing. this simply represents the default >> implementation of the bean, correct? so an app developer can create a >> manual producer... right? >> >> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Gerhard Petracek < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > +1 for @Unmanaged >> > (+1 for @Exclude if it's the only alternative we can agree on) >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2011/12/28 Marius Bogoevici <[email protected]> >> > >> > > As if we didn't have enough alternatives, here's another > one that >> popped >> > > up while discussing with Gerhard the relative merits of @Veto and >> > @Exclude: >> > > >> > > @Unmanaged >> > > >> > > I think that this solves a few problems that we currently have: >> > > >> > > a) @Veto is technically accurate, but not intuitive (and requires > an >> > > understanding of class processing, which is not a user concern) >> > > b) @Exclude is intuitive when considered in the context of > scanning but >> > > it's a bit unclear on a larger scale - 'what exactly is > this class >> > excluded >> > > from?' - the >> > > c) the annotation must be applicable to packages >> > > >> > > IMO, @Unmanaged describes best what happens to the class: it will > *not* >> > > generate a managed bean automatically. It is very similar to > @NoBean >> > early >> > > suggested by Gerhard, but works on packages too, and it describes > a >> > quality >> > > of the annotated item, in the same way as @Transient stands for > "not >> > > serialized". >> > > >> > > On 2011-12-27, at 5:43 PM, Marius Bogoevici wrote: >> > > >> > > > +1 @Veto >> > > > >> > > > -1 @Exclude >> > > > >> > > > @Veto has a very narrow meaning, and hints to >> > > ProcessAnnotatedType.veto(), which is precisely what happens to > such >> > > annotated types. I have mixed feelings about @Exclude - I'd > rather not >> > > introduce a new term, especially one that does not immediately > make you >> > > think of CDI processing. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 2011-12-26, at 6:41 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> 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 >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
