hi john, the basic contract is still the same (the implementation will be the implementation which is currently available in seam3) - just the name is more expressive.
regards, gerhard 2011/12/28 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > Unmanaged sounds a little confusing. this simply represents the default > implementation of the bean, correct? so an app developer can create a > manual producer... right? > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 for @Unmanaged > > (+1 for @Exclude if it's the only alternative we can agree on) > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2011/12/28 Marius Bogoevici <marius.bogoev...@gmail.com> > > > > > As if we didn't have enough alternatives, here's another one that > popped > > > up while discussing with Gerhard the relative merits of @Veto and > > @Exclude: > > > > > > @Unmanaged > > > > > > I think that this solves a few problems that we currently have: > > > > > > a) @Veto is technically accurate, but not intuitive (and requires an > > > understanding of class processing, which is not a user concern) > > > b) @Exclude is intuitive when considered in the context of scanning but > > > it's a bit unclear on a larger scale - 'what exactly is this class > > excluded > > > from?' - the > > > c) the annotation must be applicable to packages > > > > > > IMO, @Unmanaged describes best what happens to the class: it will *not* > > > generate a managed bean automatically. It is very similar to @NoBean > > early > > > suggested by Gerhard, but works on packages too, and it describes a > > quality > > > of the annotated item, in the same way as @Transient stands for "not > > > serialized". > > > > > > On 2011-12-27, at 5:43 PM, Marius Bogoevici wrote: > > > > > > > +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 > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
