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> 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