[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-750?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14180602#comment-14180602 ]
Adrian Cole commented on JCLOUDS-750: ------------------------------------- Just chatted with Christian etc. We'll get a version of auto quite soon, and I can pilot that with Azure Compute. https://github.com/google/auto/issues/140#issuecomment-60161507 cc [~ccustine] > Replace hand-written domain classes with Auto-Value ones > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JCLOUDS-750 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-750 > Project: jclouds > Issue Type: New Feature > Reporter: Adrian Cole > Assignee: Adrian Cole > > In doing maintenance and ports, I've noticed that we have drift related to > using guava to implement hashCode/equals on domain classes. Having an > opportunity for a guava incompatibility on something like this is not high > value, in my opinion. Moreover, we have a lot of other inconsistency in our > value classes, which have caused bugs, and extra review time on pull requests. > Auto-Value generates concrete implementations and takes out the possibility > of inconsistency of field names, Nullability, etc. It is handled at compile > time, so doesn't introduce a dependency of note, nor a chance of guava > version conflict for our users. > https://github.com/google/auto/tree/master/value > While it may be the case that we need custom gson adapters (ex opposed to the > ConstructorAnnotation approach), or a revision to our approach, I believe > that this work is worthwhile. > While it is the case that our Builders won't be generated, I still think this > is valuable. For example, in many cases, we shouldn't be making Builders > anyway (ex. they are read-only objects never instantiated, such as lists). > Even if we choose to still write Builders, the problem is isolated there. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)