agree, @Exclude makes more sense than @Veto in this combination. LieGrue, strub
----- Original Message ----- > From: Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>; Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 8:33 PM > Subject: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated > > @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 >>>>>>> >>>> >>> >
