+1 @Veto -1 @Exclude
@Veto has a very narrow meaning, and hints to ProcessAnnotatedType.veto(), which is precisely what happens to such annotated types. I have mixed feelings about @Exclude - I'd rather not introduce a new term, especially one that does not immediately make you think of CDI processing. On 2011-12-26, at 6:41 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > it looks like @Exclude is the alternative which would work for several of > us. > -> we have to choose between @Exclude and @Vote > > +1 for @Exclude > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2011/12/26 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> > >> +1 to @Veto and @Exclude >> >> Also I agree with Pete's comments about the other suggestions. >> >> Regards, >> Jakob >> >> 2011/12/24 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>: >>> We chose @Veto originally, as it didn't deviate from the spec's veto() >> method, so should be less of a learning curve. I don't like @Deactivate as >> it makes it sound like you have to activate other beans. @Ignore is too >> overloaded a term for me to be comfortable with it (@IgnoreWarnings). I >> like @Exclude as it's closest to what makes most intuitive sense. >>> >>> On 24 Dec 2011, at 09:33, Christian Kaltepoth wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps we should build a list of all suggestions and then start a >>>> vote which one to use. >>>> >>>> I think these are the names that were suggested: >>>> >>>> @Veto >>>> @Skip >>>> @Exclude >>>> @Deactivate >>>> @Ignore >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2011/12/23 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >>>>> hi arne, >>>>> >>>>> would be also ok for me -> +1 >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> gerhard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2011/12/23 Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> >>>>> >>>>>> What about @Exclude? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Arne >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>>> Von: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com] >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011 21:28 >>>>>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-8] @Veto >>>>>> >>>>>> +0.5 for @Skip >>>>>> as mentioned in the original thread @Veto is accurate from a technical >>>>>> perspective, but it sounds strange for users who aren't aware of the >>>>>> mechanism behind. >>>>>> >>>>>> if we are talking only about @Veto vs @Skip and not about the other >>>>>> alternatives: +1 for @Skip >>>>>> >>>>>> regards, >>>>>> gerhard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2011/12/23 Dan Allen <dan.j.al...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Veto is rationally the most appropriate since it directly translates >>>>>>> to calling ProcessAnnotatedType#veto() >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, I'd like to offer one other alternative: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Skip >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While veto describes what the extension is doing internally, skip is >>>>>>> how the developer perceives the result of the action. The class is >>>>>>> "skipped over" during the scanning process. This is similar to the >>>>>>> suggestion @Ignore, and I think both would get the point across >> equally >>>>>> well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> p.s. Apologizes for dropping the rest of the thread. I wasn't >>>>>>> receiving messages when this thread started. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dan Allen >>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action >>>>>>> Registered Linux User #231597 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about >>>>>>> http://mojavelinux.com >>>>>>> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Christian Kaltepoth >>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/ >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jakob Korherr >> >> blog: http://www.jakobk.com >> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr >> work: http://www.irian.at >>
