That makes sense, however renaming these commands will break existing scripts. This should be something to be considered for Forge 3.x Em 13/03/2015, às 19:00, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.mailing(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu: Hi all, I'm a bit particular on wording because I think that the right word makes things easier for the new comer. I'm implementing a new UI command to add an injection point to a class. So, the name of the command would be cdi-add-injection-point. But then I started to have a look at the other xxx-*add*-yyy commands : addon-add-dependency project-add-dependencies project-add-managed-dependencies project-add-repository java-add-annotation constraint-add They all add something, into something already existing. If we take this definition for granted, shouldn't the following commands be renamed *add* instead of *new* : jpa-new-named-query cdi-new-conversation java-new-enum-const java-new-field java-new-method jpa-new-field -- Antonio Goncalves Software architect and Java Champion Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG <http://www.parisjug.org/> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr/> _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

Em 14/03/2015, às 08:21, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; escreveu: > On 13 Mar 2015, at 15:10, George Gastaldi wrote: > > That makes sense, however renaming these commands will break existing > scripts. This should be something to be considered for Forge 3.x does forge 2 not have a notion of aliases or similar that could be used to create uniformity but still be backwards compatible ? /max > > >> Em 13/03/2015, às 19:00, Antonio Goncalves >> <antonio.mailing(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm a bit particular on wording because I think that the right word >> makes things easier for the new comer. I'm implementing a new UI >> command to add an injection point to a class. So, the name of the >> command would be cdi-add-injection-point. But then I started to have >> a look at the other xxx-add-yyy commands : >> >> addon-add-dependency >> project-add-dependencies >> project-add-managed-dependencies >> project-add-repository >> java-add-annotation >> constraint-add >> >> They all add something, into something already existing. If we take >> this definition for granted, shouldn't the following commands be >> renamed add instead of new : >> >> jpa-new-named-query >> cdi-new-conversation >> java-new-enum-const >> java-new-field >> java-new-method >> jpa-new-field >> >> >> >> -- >> Antonio Goncalves >> Software architect and Java Champion >> >> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France >> _______________________________________________ >> forge-dev mailing list >> forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev > _______________________________________________ > forge-dev mailing list > forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev /max http://about.me/maxandersen _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev