Clarify usage of the `name` attribute of `@Source`

[jmartisk]

The @Source annotation has a parameter name, the javadoc says it should denote the name of the added field. But the spec text doesn't mention this at all, and the TCK don't verify this either.

Another way to specify the name is to use a @Name annotation on the source method. We might need to clarify that both approaches are supported, and potentially specify which one takes priority?! (Or leave the behavior as "undefined" in case that both approaches are used at the same time)

[phillip-kruger]

This should be consistent with other annotations. So no name attribute on @Source only value. And support for the @Name annotation.

[jmartisk]

There's no value attribute on @Source, only name.
Shall we deprecate the name attribute for removal? It would be tempting to remove it right away because it probably never worked for anybody, but if the next release is a minor (2.1) then I think we should still refrain from it.

[phillip-kruger]

Yes I think so. And add the value attribute

[federico-s]

Hello, any update on this?
I'd like to mantain two different names: one for the root query and one for the nested field in the Source-annotated object.

@Query
public List<String> getWeatherChanges(@Source(name = "changes") Weather weather) {

    return weatherService.getChanges(weather);
}

Expected behaviour:

type Query {
    weatherChanges(weather:Weather): [String]
}

type Weather {
    changes: [String]
}

Actual behaviour:

type Query {
    weatherChanges(weather:Weather): [String]
}

type Weather {
    weatherChanges: [String]
}

I tried with the @name annotation but still.

Thanks