Hm, I like the idea. I think we should discuss the stereotype a bit more. Seems 
like a good compromise to getting both type safety and combining the concepts. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 3, 2012, at 11:57, Arne Limburg <[email protected]> wrote:

> +1 for unifying all that stuff within one annotation.
> 
> In addition we should think about supporting stereotypes. 
> @ProductionActivated then could be a stereotype with @Veto(...) on it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Arne
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 18:26
> An: [email protected]
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
> 
> +1 for using projectStage, notInProjectStage (if needed),... explicitly.
> 
> we can handle extensibility via the expression and custom implementations of 
> ExpressionInterpreter (like we are using it in myfaces codi already).
> 
> regards,
> gerhard
> 
> 
> 
> 2012/1/3 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>
> 
>> Sitting together with Gerhard we had another idea.
>> 
>> What do you think about unifying all this stuff
>> 
>> 
>> @Veto
>> 
>> @Veto(projectStage=UnitTest.class)
>> 
>> @Veto(notInProjectStage=Production.class)
>> 
>> @Veto(expression="myproperty=myValue")
>> 
>> 
>> (independent on the final name of @Veto)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Instead of having projectStage and notInProjectStage as explicit 
>> annotation values, we could also move this to a string based 
>> expression For example
>> @Veto("projectStage=Production")
>> The downside is that we would loose the type safety, thus I don't 
>> really like it.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub + os890
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]>
>>> To: "[email protected]" <
>> [email protected]>
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 2:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
>>> 
>>> Back then we also had a few discussions about this very topic.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We did choose @ProjectStageActivated and @ExpressionActivated, 
>>> because
>> the beans
>>> are not 'actived by this expression' but 'only active on this 
>>> expression'
>>> 
>>> Any @Alternative @ActivatedByExtression public class MyBean will 
>>> _not_ get automatically enabled, but _still_ needs the
>> <alternatives>
>>> entry in beans.xml!
>>> 
>>> @ActivatedByExpression and @ActivatedByProjectStage (or the 
>>> equivalent
>> ..On...)
>>> imo implies a bit too much.
>>> 
>>> Actually it's rather the other way around. A bean will _not_ get
>> _vetoed_ if
>>> the underlying expression resolves to 'true' ;)
>>> 
>>> So I'm +0.8 for @ExpressionActivated and -0.2 against 
>>> @ActivatedByExpression. Imo the @ActivatedOnExpression is a bit 
>>> better,
>> so +0.2
>>> for it.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Peter Muir <[email protected]>
>>>> To: "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>>> Cc: "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 2:18 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
>>>> 
>>>> I would prefer @activatedonexpression, it fits better with the spec.
>>>> 
>>>> As an alternative, what about @ActivatedByExpression which to me 
>>>> reads
>>> better.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Pete Muir
>>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>>>> 
>>>> On 2 Jan 2012, at 05:34, Jason Porter <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  +1 for @ActivatedOnExpression. It reads better which goes a long 
>>>>> way
>>> for
>>>> easy to use, self documenting code.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>>  On Jan 1, 2012, at 17:57, Gerhard Petracek
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>  hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>>>>>  @ExpressionActivated).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  thx & regards,
>>>>>>  gerhard
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <[email protected]>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  +1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>>  +1
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  On 2011-12-19, at 8:28 AM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  hi @ all,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  fyi: please check [1] before you answer.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  [2] provides a short introduction as well as the basic
>>> 
>>>> usage.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  the basic concept:
>>>>>>>>>  via the annotation @ExpressionActivated it's
>>> possible
>>>> to veto bean
>>>>>>>>>  implementations based on the given expression.
>>>>>>>>>  it's possible to change the supported syntax via
>>> an
>>>> optional
>>>>>>>>>  ExpressionInterpreter.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  please send
>>>>>>>>>  +1, +0 or -1 because...
>>>>>>>>>  for the basic idea as well as the basic concept.
>>>>>>>>>  if there are >basic< objections, please also add
>>> them
>>>> to [3]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  regards,
>>>>>>>>>  gerhard
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  [1] http://markmail.org/message/7yefspfuvtz4jvmp
>>>>>>>>>  [2]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EXTCDI/Core+Usage#CoreUsag
>> e-@ExpressionActivated
>>>>>>>>>  [3]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Rank
>> ing
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>>  Christian Kaltepoth
>>>>>>>  Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>  Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to