@Exclude could be used in a sentence: @Exclude(inProjectStage=Production.class) @Exclude(notInProjectStage=UnitTest.class) @Exclude(onExpression="...")
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Pete Muir [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 20:26 An: [email protected]; Mark Struberg Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated I like this idea, but we are straying from the "guidelines" that the spec has laid down for naming - that in general "provided" annotations don't have members, and that the annotation should basically make sense in a sentence. If we can rectify this, but keep the idea, I'm +1. Unfortunately, I'm out of ideas on how achieve this ;-) I will try to mull it over tonight. On 3 Jan 2012, at 17:19, Mark Struberg wrote: > 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#CoreUsa >> ge-@ExpressionActivated >>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ra >>> nking >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Christian Kaltepoth >>>>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >>>>>> >>> >>
