> @@ -78,6 +93,20 @@ protected void configure() {
> .put(FirewallOptions.class, new FirewallOptionsTypeAdapter())
> .put(RouteOptions.class, new RouteOptionsTypeAdapter())
> .put(Rule.class, new RuleTypeAdapter())
> + .put(BackendServiceOptions.class, new
> BackendServiceOptionsTypeAdapter())
> + .put(BackendService.Backend.class, new BackendTypeAdapter())
> + .put(UrlMapOptions.class, new UrlMapOptionsTypeAdapter())
> + .put(UrlMap.HostRule.class, new HostRuleTypeAdapter())
> + .put(UrlMap.PathMatcher.class, new PathMatcherTypeAdapter())
> + .put(UrlMap.UrlMapTest.class, new TestTypeAdapter())
> + .put(UrlMap.PathRule.class, new PathRuleTypeAdapter())
> + .put(UrlMapValidateResult.class, new
> UrlMapValidateResultTypeAdapter())
> + .put(ResourceViewOptions.class, new
> ResourceViewOptionsTypeAdapter())
> + .put(ResourceView.class, new ResourceViewTypeAdapter())
> + .put(new TypeLiteral<ListPage<ResourceView>>() {}.getType(),
> + new ListPageResourceViewTypeAdapter())
> + .put(new TypeLiteral<ListPage<URI>>() {}.getType(),
Hmmm yes. Having a quick look it seems that most of these type adapters could
be removed if the `@ConstructorProperties` annotations are moved to the
"parent" classes, and the fields are annotated accordingly with the `@Named`
annotation.
@ashmrtnz Is there any need for all these custom type adapters and "internal"
classes instead of directly using the domain object model?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/38/files#r17711213
