Hi David, just asked a question cause I think we missed some double exception wrapping we can avoid so if you can clarify that but all issues got fixed for me except that question. Thanks a lot for the hard work!
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le ven. 13 mai 2022 à 20:18, David Blevins <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On May 13, 2022, at 9:22 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Le ven. 13 mai 2022 à 16:57, David Blevins <[email protected]> a > > écrit : > > > >>> On May 12, 2022, at 11:17 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi David, > >>> > >>> Just had a look and it seems it is mainly about ensuring we'll move > >> master > >>> to 1.3.0-SNAPSHOT (can need a thread at least for visibility) > >> > >> Good idea. Created a thread on 1.3 with the motivations so that is > >> documented on list and we can get feedback if any. > >> > >>> and cleaning > >>> up ExceptionMessages (simpleName impl) then we can move forward I > think. > >> > >> Is there any chance for some flexibility on that method? > >> > >> My big concern is that if I push back we'll find ourselves in a debate > on > >> calling class.getSimpleName() vs using string manipulation and that will > >> come at the expense of time we could spend collaborating on more > >> fun/impactful things. We're likely another 3 or 4 PRs before we could > get > >> the items in the reports addressed and 1.3 out the door. > >> > > > > Im fine with current code if there is some enforcement (tests) we dont > > support any other Type cases - thinking it is harder than simplifying the > > impl i proposed it but while we have something simple to grok for all > > supported types i m actually fine. > > I really appreciate that. Class names can get quite strange, hence my > reticence with any string manipulation approach. > > I've updated the PR to handle WildcardType and GenericArrayType and added > more explicit tests. As before there is a fallback of calling > getTypeName() in case we see something unknown. > > Let me know if there's a common Type derivative I should add. > > > -David > >
