Agreed, My initial plan is to create a util class to encompass additional rules that we assign so that there is one source of truth. I'll document any test cases that have to be modified and changes that result from this so that I can get as many eyes on it as possible and I will fight every natural instinct I have and go slowly so that it's not a surprise to anyone.
- Jason On Mon, Nov 19, 2018, at 6:58 AM, David Bosschaert wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 07:22, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: >> In addition to what has already been said, the converter might differ in >> three ways: >> >> a) additional rules >> If the converter supports more conversions than what we have today, >> that's not an issue >> b) missing rules >> If the converter does not support a conversion that we have today, we >> can simply add the missing rule >> c) different rule >> If the converter converts the same object into a target class >> differently from what we do today, than this might be an issue. However, >> I guess this can only happen for things like date conversion. In these >> case we can simply add our own rule on top of the converter > > Yes, the OSGi Converter supports custom rules which allow tweaking its > behaviour, it's documented here: > https://osgi.org/specification/osgi.cmpn/7.0.0/util.converter.html#util.converter-customizing.converters > > Best regards, > > David
