Deprecating ChannelPipelineCoverage?

[Mike McGrady]

I agree Christian that the original suggested change is simpler but  
the change gives you a restriction that assumes something false and,  
as such misleads.  What would be called stateless in fact is not  
stateless.  I use this annotation ("all) for stateful handlers.  The  
handler, not the pipeline determines whether it is stateful or not.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 9, 2009, at 1:04 AM, Christian Migowski <chrismfwrd at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Hi Trustin,
>
> I do like your suggestion as the present @ChannelPipelineCoverage is
> really quite un-intuitive, you've got to have quite a bit of Netty
> knowledge to know what it means.
> @Stateful and @Stateless can easily be grasped by users, especially
> non-expert non-native english speakers; Michaels concern is dealing
> with a special case IMHO (handlers that do store state are much more
> often per pipeline then not), this can be covered in the
> documentation.
>
> regards,
> christian!
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Trustin Lee (이희승)  
> <trustin at gmail.com> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netty-dev mailing list
> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev