-0 or a tad lower. Actually value= in annotations shall imo only be used if it is really THE value of the annotation and not just because it's handy to not having to write any xxx= But in the end it's a matter of taste.
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, 5 December 2013, 15:49 > Subject: Re: Renaming @ViewRef config property? > > More opinions about this? > > > > 2013/10/7 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > >> +1 Romain >> >> IMO it's "nicer" to read but it's not up to me. >> >> >> 2013/10/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >>> I didnt use viewref enough to say but typically it is boring to need to >>> write name in configproperty each time while you know what it is. > Moreover >>> for viewref, config doesnt sound really right, metadata or marker > sounds >>> as >>> right as config depending where you are coming from. >>> >>> Well this doesnt hold features so i dont want to loose time in it but > now >>> you know why i like value ;) >>> Le 3 oct. 2013 23:21, "Gerhard Petracek" > <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> a >>> écrit : >>> >>> > -0.5 (instead of -1), because i used "value" in codi > back then and >>> there is >>> > nothing wrong with it. >>> > however, that was one of the lessons learned from using it in > projects >>> and >>> > explaining it in trainings for almost three years. >>> > what we have right now just reflects the feedback. >>> > >>> > regards, >>> > gerhard >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2013/10/3 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >>> > >>> > > If config is the unique mandatory attr it should be value imo >>> > > Le 3 oct. 2013 22:39, "Gerhard Petracek" > <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> >>> a >>> > > écrit : >>> > > >>> > > > hi thomas, >>> > > > >>> > > > yes - we had something in codi and we might add > something like the >>> > > payload >>> > > > in bv. >>> > > > >>> > > > regards, >>> > > > gerhard >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > 2013/10/3 Thomas Andraschko > <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >>> > > > >>> > > > > @Gerhard: Are there any expected properties on > @ViewRef in the >>> > future? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 2013/10/3 Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > +1, same for @ConfigProperty btw >>> > > > > > Le 3 oct. 2013 20:49, "Gerhard > Petracek" < >>> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >>> > > > >>> > > > a >>> > > > > > écrit : >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -0.5 for now >>> > > > > > > once we add more, you get the same and it > would be not that >>> > > > expressive. >>> > > > > > > that was the reason for changing it > (compared to codi). >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > regards, >>> > > > > > > gerhard >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > 2013/10/3 Thomas Andraschko > <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Hi, >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > currently @ViewRef has only one > property called "config". >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > So the current usage is: >>> > > > > > > > @ViewRef(config = > Views.Logout.class) >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > What about renaming it to > "value"? >>> > > > > > > > -> @ViewRef(Views.Logout.class) >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Regards, >>> > > > > > > > Thomas >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
