Correct answer, Dan.
And yes, it can now be removed.
On 12 Mar 2013, at 13:52, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the field was needed because InboundInvocationHandlerImpl was using
ComponentRegistry.getComponent(ResponseGenerator.class), and there wasn't
anyone actually
Will remove it then.
Thanks!
On 03/13/2013 02:46 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
Correct answer, Dan.
And yes, it can now be removed.
On 12 Mar 2013, at 13:52, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com
mailto:dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the field was needed because
Hi,
does anyone know what issue is the unused (but injected)
CacheImpl.responseGenerator field supposed to cure? See here:
https://github.com/anistor/infinispan/blob/master/core/src/main/java/org/infinispan/CacheImpl.java#L139
The accompanying comment does not seem to be valid anymore.
And this is how it looked in 5.1.x
https://github.com/anistor/infinispan/blob/5.1.x/core/src/main/java/org/infinispan/CacheImpl.java#L139
On 03/12/2013 01:40 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote:
Hi,
does anyone know what issue is the unused (but injected)
CacheImpl.responseGenerator field supposed to
git annotate points to Mr. Surtani :-)
On 12 Mar 2013, at 11:43, Adrian Nistor wrote:
And this is how it looked in 5.1.x
https://github.com/anistor/infinispan/blob/5.1.x/core/src/main/java/org/infinispan/CacheImpl.java#L139
On 03/12/2013 01:40 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote:
Hi,
does anyone
I think the field was needed because InboundInvocationHandlerImpl was using
ComponentRegistry.getComponent(ResponseGenerator.class), and there wasn't
anyone actually creating the ResponseGenerator component.
Since https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1793, ComponentRegistry creates
the
