If you're referring to the discussion about the annotation's names, we haven't taken a decision yet, but it is something that needs to be addressed next week latest.
At the moment I committed my code using the annotations @PropertySpecific and @NotPropertySpecific but nobody like them (including myself) so I will rename them as soon as we will take a decision.

Mario

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun@gmail.com> wrote:
There was a brief discussion about annotation class names a few days
ago - has this been finalized, and if so, what is the result? 

Thanks
Wolfgang


On 16 February 2012 18:26, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> wrote:
We are just fine tuning PropertySpecific behahviour.

Initially a pattern without any properties' mask was set to
LONG.MAX_VALUE so that it responded to any field changes.

However we've now changed it to 0, so Cell() will respond to the initial
insertion, but it will not respond to any modifies.

Should you want it to respond to modifies you must add @watch(*).

The other aspect is that we are adding a kbuillder configration to set
the default behaviour. Currently it is off. With it defaulting to off
using PropertySpecific as an annotation makes sense. If we default it to
on you then need to use PropertySpecific(true). i.e. the reversing of
the logic means for the common case we now need an argument. Considering
this common case will become default at some point in the future, i.e.
you want the parameterless version to be the common use case.
NonPropertySpecific is a bit long :)

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


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