Hi David, Ah, that’s great, thank you very much!!
Of course, I would like to update to the new API, but the current implementation does not appear to be doing deep copying of objects when using the targetAsDTO() configuration. I do not know why. I don’t mind looking into it, but to be honest, I am getting a bit lost in the recursive parts of the converting algorithm… With a bit of help from you to figure out how the current impl works, I could certainly look into it. Thanks again! Cheers, =David > On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:13 PM, David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi David, > > Yes, the OSGi API is publicly available for everyone and picked up by the > build process from here: > https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/osgi/org/osgi/org.osgi.util.converter/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT > > There is some history of snapshots but I think older ones are automatically > deleted after some time. > > If, for some reason, you need an older one, and you still have a Felix > Converter .jar file that worked with that one, you can actually find that > the jar file embeds the OSGi API as well. This is automatically done by the > build process. > The Felix Converter snapshots are pushed here: > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/felix/org.apache.felix.converter/0.1.0-SNAPSHOT > > In any case, it might be better to migrate to the new API :) > > Cheers, > > David > > On 3 April 2017 at 09:09, David Leangen <o...@leangen.net> wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >>> I hope that's not the case. It definitely does not make sense to push >> code >>> for an implementation where the api itself is not accessible ;-) >> >> The API is accessible. The problem is that it is not the correct version, >> and I don’t have access (as far as I know) to the previous version, which >> is the one I need to revert to. >> >> The current version and the previous version are both exposed as: >> >> <dependency> >> <groupId>org.osgi</groupId> >> <artifactId>org.osgi.util.converter</artifactId> >> <version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version> >> </dependency> >> >> Same version number, but different content. >> >> As I said, I could be wrong, but that is my current conclusion based on >> the behaviour I am seeing. >> >> >> Cheers, >> =David >> >>
