You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@deltaspike.apache.org by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com> on 2011/12/19 14:28:32 UTC
[DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
[3]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>.
+1 for @ExpressionActivated.
2012/1/2 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 for @ActivatedOnExpression. It reads better which goes a long way for easy to use, self documenting code.
>
> +1
> I agree!
>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2012, at 17:57, Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>>
>>> thx & regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
--
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for @ActivatedOnExpression. It reads better which goes a long way for easy to use, self documenting code.
+1
I agree!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 1, 2012, at 17:57, Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>
>> thx & regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>>>>> [3]
>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
hi @ all,
for now we moved this thread to [1]
regards,
gerhard
[1] http://markmail.org/message/6gdrbtjgh6tyh5ow
2012/1/4 Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>
> +1 I think that's a good way to do things. Also helps us move forward.
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 16:43, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for exclude as described.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> > gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > > however, we should start a new thread to increase the visibility.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > gerhard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/1/3 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > > 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:pmuir@redhat.com]
> > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 20:26
> > > > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > > >>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > > > >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > > >>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
> > > > >>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > > > >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > > >>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > > > >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > > >>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> 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
> > > > >>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> hi,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> please send your opinion about the name
> (@ActivatedOnExpression
> > > vs
> > > > >>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> thx & regards,
> > > > >>>>>> gerhard
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
> > > > >>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>>>>>> +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
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Porter
> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
>
> Software Engineer
> Open Source Advocate
> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling
>
> PGP key id: 926CCFF5
> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>.
+1 I think that's a good way to do things. Also helps us move forward.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 16:43, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for exclude as described.
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > +1
> > however, we should start a new thread to increase the visibility.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2012/1/3 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> >
> > > 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:pmuir@redhat.com]
> > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 20:26
> > > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > >>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > > >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
> > > >>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > > >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > > >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> 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
> > > >>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> hi,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression
> > vs
> > > >>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> thx & regards,
> > > >>>>>> gerhard
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
> > > >>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>>>>> +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
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Jason Porter
http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
Software Engineer
Open Source Advocate
Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling
PGP key id: 926CCFF5
PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1 for exclude as described.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> wrote:
> +1
> however, we should start a new thread to increase the visibility.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/1/3 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>
> > 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:pmuir@redhat.com]
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 20:26
> > > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
> > >>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
> > >>> 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
> > >>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> hi,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression
> vs
> > >>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> thx & regards,
> > >>>>>> gerhard
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
> > >>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>>> +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
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
+1
however, we should start a new thread to increase the visibility.
regards,
gerhard
2012/1/3 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> 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:pmuir@redhat.com]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 20:26
> > An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
> >>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> >>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
> >>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> >>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
> >>> 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
> >>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
> >>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thx & regards,
> >>>>>> gerhard
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
> >>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>> +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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
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:pmuir@redhat.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 20:26
> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thx & regards,
>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> +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
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
agree, @Exclude makes more sense than @Veto in this combination.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>
> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <de...@incubator.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> 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:pmuir@redhat.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 20:26
> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> 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
> <li...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please send your opinion about the name
> (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thx & regards,
>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth
> <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> +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
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>.
@Exclude could be used in a sentence:
@Exclude(inProjectStage=Production.class)
@Exclude(notInProjectStage=UnitTest.class)
@Exclude(onExpression="...")
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pmuir@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 20:26
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>>>>
>>>>> thx & regards,
>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> +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
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Yea no worries, we just dump ideas onto one big fat stack and then we go through each idea. So if you have another idea, then just drop it - even if it sounds wild at first.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 8:26 PM
> Subject: 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> 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
> <li...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please send your opinion about the name
> (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thx & regards,
>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth
> <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>>>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
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 <st...@yahoo.de>
>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>>>>
>>>>> thx & regards,
>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>.
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 <ar...@openknowledge.de> 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:gerhard.petracek@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 18:26
> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
>
>> 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
>> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thx & regards,
>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> +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
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
AW: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Arne Limburg <ar...@openknowledge.de>.
+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:gerhard.petracek@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 18:26
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
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 <st...@yahoo.de>
> 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
> > To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
> >> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
> > 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
> >> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
> >>>> @ExpressionActivated).
> >>>>
> >>>> thx & regards,
> >>>> gerhard
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
> > <ma...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>> +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
> >>>>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
+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 <st...@yahoo.de>
> 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 <st...@yahoo.de>
> > To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <
> deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
> >> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> > <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
> > 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
> >> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
> >>>> @ExpressionActivated).
> >>>>
> >>>> thx & regards,
> >>>> gerhard
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
> > <ma...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
> >>>>>>> [3]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
> >>>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
> >>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> >>>>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
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 <st...@yahoo.de>
> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
> <de...@incubator.apache.org>
>> 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 <li...@gmail.com>
> 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
>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>>>
>>>> thx & regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici
> <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
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 <pm...@redhat.com>
> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> Cc: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org" <de...@incubator.apache.org>
> 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 <li...@gmail.com> 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
> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>>
>>> thx & regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>
>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Peter Muir <pm...@redhat.com>.
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 <li...@gmail.com> 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 <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
>> @ExpressionActivated).
>>
>> thx & regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>>> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>>>>> [3]
>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>.
+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 <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
> @ExpressionActivated).
>
> thx & regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>
>> +1
>>
>> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>:
>>> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>>>> [3]
>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Kaltepoth
>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1 for ExpressionActivated which seems closer to a name the CDI spec
would use.
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> wrote:
> hi,
>
> please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
> @ExpressionActivated).
>
> thx & regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
>
> > +1
> >
> > 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
> > >> [3]
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Kaltepoth
> > Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
hi,
please send your opinion about the name (@ActivatedOnExpression vs
@ExpressionActivated).
thx & regards,
gerhard
2011/12/20 Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>
> +1
>
> 2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
> >> [3]
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Christian Kaltepoth <ch...@kaltepoth.de>.
+1
2011/12/20 Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>:
> +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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>> [3]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>
--
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Marius Bogoevici <ma...@gmail.com>.
+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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
> [3]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>.
+1
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2011, at 6:28, Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com> 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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
> [3]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
+1 but we need to review the default expression evaluators and how we make them easily extendible.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 2:28 PM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
>
> 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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
> [3]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
+0.5 e.g. for the name @ActivatedOnExpression, if we can also agree on
@ActivatedOnProjectStage for [1].
regards,
gerhard
[1] http://s.apache.org/W7l
2011/12/19 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> +1
> (we could think about a different name)
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2011/12/19 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>
>> 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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
>> [3]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-7] ExpressionActivated
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
+1
(we could think about a different name)
regards,
gerhard
2011/12/19 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> 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#CoreUsage-@ExpressionActivated
> [3]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking
>