Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto

[Jozef Hartinger <jh...@redhat.com>]

On 12/27/2011 03:33 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> @a (in general):
> just because there is an existing name doesn't mean that it is the best we
> can get (that's also true for names used in codi)
>
> @b:
> i hope the cdi 1.1 version works differently (imo: instead of calling #veto
> such a bean should be ignored at all ->  not even passed to a cdi extension)
> ->there would be a difference behaviour
In the recent draft of the specification an AnnotatedType representing a 
@Veto-annotated class is still processed by extensions. Could you open a 
spec issue at https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI with your suggestion?
>
> furthermore, in our proposal we mentioned:
> "The goal of Apache DeltaSpike ... and to act as an incubator for features
> that may eventually become part of the various Java SE and EE-related
> specifications ..."
> in this case that could also mean that we found a better name for it which
> can be used by cdi 1.1 as well.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2011/12/27 Mark Struberg<st...@yahoo.de>
>
>> +1 for @Veto
>>
>>
>> a.) because it's already established in Seam3 ->  easier to transit Seam
>> projects
>> b.) because this will also be used in the CDI-1.1 spec itself [1]. Thus
>> users will be familiar with it.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/pmuir/cdi/blob/479e144ccfa0235faf5662355d02a7fe5f6725f6/api/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/Veto.java
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Gerhard Petracek<ge...@gmail.com>
>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto
>>>
>>> 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<ja...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>>   +1 to @Veto and @Exclude
>>>>
>>>>   Also I agree with Pete's comments about the other suggestions.
>>>>
>>>>   Regards,
>>>>   Jakob
>>>>
>>>>   2011/12/24 Pete Muir<pm...@redhat.com>:
>>>>   >  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<ge...@gmail.com>:
>>>>   >>>  hi arne,
>>>>   >>>
>>>>   >>>  would be also ok for me ->  +1
>>>>   >>>
>>>>   >>>  regards,
>>>>   >>>  gerhard
>>>>   >>>
>>>>   >>>
>>>>   >>>  2011/12/23 Arne Limburg<ar...@openknowledge.de>
>>>>   >>>
>>>>   >>>>  What about @Exclude?
>>>>   >>>>
>>>>   >>>>  Cheers,
>>>>   >>>>  Arne
>>>>   >>>>
>>>>   >>>>  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>   >>>>  Von: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petracek@gmail.com]
>>>>   >>>>  Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011 21:28
>>>>   >>>>  An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>   >>>>  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<da...@gmail.com>
>>>>   >>>>
>>>>   >>>>>  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
>>>>