[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12653405#action_12653405
]
Henning Schmiedehausen commented on SHINDIG-728:
------------------------------------------------
I fully agree. I am not a Guice maven either (but I have one sitting right
across the hallway and I can wave at him if I need something. ;-) )
In the second case, it will blow up. Given the fact that this mapper is used to
map transfer objects onto concrete classes, I feel that the performance gain by
not going to Guice for non-interface types outweights the risk of blowing up.
If it really happens, we look at the use case and reengineer.
> The Shindig social-api should not use Guice annotations to find its
> implementation classes.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SHINDIG-728
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-728
> Project: Shindig
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: RESTful API (Java)
> Reporter: Henning Schmiedehausen
> Attachments: 0001-A-sane-InterfaceClassMapper.patch,
> 0001-Add-testcase-for-InterfaceClassMapper.patch
>
>
> Currently, the social-api uses some clever annotation magic to find its
> implementation classes inside the XStream marshalling/unmarshalling code.
> This code actually does not work with custom object implementations.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
