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@gmail.com> 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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev