Deprecating ChannelPipelineCoverage?

[Trustin Lee (이희승)]

Good point.  Then, do you have some suggestion for a better name than
ChannelPipelineCoverage, or do you think it's just fine?  I think
there might be a better name that makes it easier to understand.

Thanks

— Trustin Lee, http://gleamynode.net/



On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Mike McGrady
<mmcgrady at topiatechnology.com> wrote:
> Hi, Trustin,
>
> I think that the present annotations are more explicit.  The present
> annotations say what is actually happening.  The stateful and
> stateless annotations would not actually fit what is happening with my
> code.  I use stateful code with "all" and this is not a problem.  If
> the annotation were changed I would have "stateless" as the annotation
> but have a stateful handler.
>
> Mike
>
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Trustin Lee (이희승) wrote:
>
>> What do you think about replacing ChannelPipelineCoverage with more
>> explicit annotations such as @Stateful and @Stateless?
>>
>> ChannelPipelineCoverage has a confusing name (at least for a
>> beginner), and its value cannot be validated on compile time because
>> it's string.
>>
>> — Trustin Lee, http://gleamynode.net/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netty-dev mailing list
>> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev
>
> Mike McGrady
> Principal Investigator AF081-028 AFRL SBIR
> Senior Engineer
> Topia Technology, Inc.
> 1.253.720.3365
> mmcgrady at topiatechnology.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netty-dev mailing list
> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev
>