+1 however, we should start a new thread to increase the visibility. regards, gerhard
2012/1/3 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > I like this :-) > > On 3 Jan 2012, at 19:33, Arne Limburg wrote: > > > @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 > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > >
