generics hell question
oradkovsky opened this issue · 1 comments
hello! Please consider this as question.
Assuming we ended up with strange modelling like this one Model1<Model2<Model3>>
, present day version of JsonXConverterFactory, namely responseBodyConverter, will crash here type.actualTypeArguments.first() as Class<*>
(because first() is also ParameterizedType, which, can go on and on)
Question: is it bug or feature? :) Clearly, this can be bypassed and surely this kind of modelling is bad in the first place, so I'm just curious about "creators intent" here.
@oradkovsky this is a good point! To be honest, we didn't intend to support nested generics, but we will definitely consider it for the future updates.
Even though modelling a n-depth generic class is probably a bad idea, this could be solved in the library by using some recursive approach.
I will make sure to add this to our to-do list for the next release. Thank you very much for your feedback!