Hi & Merry Christmas guys!

I believe you applied implicit converters to both branches.  However, I
only see support for implicit array converters (maybe that's how you aimed
to do array types?).  The actual implementation is pretty much the same, I
would just move the array logic into its own converter for consistency; but
I think you should look at the approach I took on the escape character
handling in MP version.  I do end up looping around the value twice
(regex + foreach)

One big difference I see, in my impl when you want a array, set or list, I
go string -> list first, then convert to either array or set if need be.
In the JSR case, I see it is doing string -> list -> array then to list/set
if need be.

Perhaps we can blend the two together?

John

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 5:24 AM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> +1 in general
>
> @John, please also take a look at the ConfigJSR branch.
> It already contains many of the functionality already as Emily just copied
> over my changes from JSR-382 to mp-config.
>
> E.g all the implicit converters and array stuff is already done.
> Happy to have a hangout and do a pair review of it and then unify it again.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 24.12.2017 um 08:23 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]
> >:
> >
> > Sounds good. Thanks for the heads up
> >
> > Le 24 déc. 2017 05:02, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > Hey all
> >
> > I just pushed up the last of the changes in the Geronimo config trunk
> that would align to the MP Config 1.2 spec.  There's still a bit of clean
> up I want to aim for, so maybe after the new year we can plan to cut a
> release of Config 1.1?
> >
> > You'll note in my commit, I moved most of the logic around converter
> registration from ConfigImpl into DefaultConfigBuilder.  I think this works
> out a bit better, this way we only have to register converters that are
> prioritized.  I want to align Implicit converters into the
> MicroProfileTypedConverter class, to clean up the code a bit more.
> >
> > John
>
>

Reply via email to