Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 2.0
    • Fix Version/s: 2.0
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Do you really want somebody calling replaceWith() within Feature.configure() or DynamicFeature.configure()? IMO, replaceWith() should be moved to ClientBuilder, Client and WebTarget and not be part of Configurable. (Or even removed from the API and deferred to a later release).

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          Marek Potociar added a comment -

          I'm fine with making it part of client component APIs. I'm strongly against removing from the API.

          Show
          Marek Potociar added a comment - I'm fine with making it part of client component APIs. I'm strongly against removing from the API.
          Hide
          Marek Potociar added a comment - - edited

          I gave it another look and I'm actually not against removing the replaceWith() altogether. I could not find any use case in our code to justify keeping it there. Of course, we would have to keep some similar method on the ClientBuilder API.

          Show
          Marek Potociar added a comment - - edited I gave it another look and I'm actually not against removing the replaceWith() altogether. I could not find any use case in our code to justify keeping it there. Of course, we would have to keep some similar method on the ClientBuilder API.
          Hide
          Marek Potociar added a comment -
          • Configurable.replaceWith(Configuration) has been removed from the API.
          • ClientBuilder.withConfig(Configuration) has been introduced as this is the only place where we see a clear use case for the method.
          Show
          Marek Potociar added a comment - Configurable.replaceWith(Configuration) has been removed from the API. ClientBuilder.withConfig(Configuration) has been introduced as this is the only place where we see a clear use case for the method.
          Hide
          patriot1burke added a comment -

          There is still a problem related to issue 383. If Configuration.getClasses() and getInstances() return providers registered by features then you have some potential weird bugs where a provider is doubly registered.

          Show
          patriot1burke added a comment - There is still a problem related to issue 383. If Configuration.getClasses() and getInstances() return providers registered by features then you have some potential weird bugs where a provider is doubly registered.

            People

            • Assignee:
              Marek Potociar
              Reporter:
              patriot1burke
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: