Oki, let me know if we can do it and I would be happy to do the change. Alternatively - if we can't, maybe we should introduce that flag per jar or extension potentially to enable a "mixed" app (to think if previous option doesn't become possible).
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> 2018-04-22 10:09 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > I'd need to do some tests. But think it's fine. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 21.04.2018 um 18:48 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > >: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > do we want to switch our fastMatching flag on the 2.x? (think we cant on > > 1.x) > > > > Rational is we would be spec compliant. I know it has some issue with the > > old way to create producers without generics (or more exactly with a > > wildcard) but it is not spec compliant too. > > > > I encounter that issue (of having the wrong default) writing an extension > > where i register the exact types even for templates (Foo<X> would have > > registered Foo<A>, Foo<B>, ... as needed) > > > > wdyt? > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java- > ee-8-high-performance> > >
