Skip to content

Add property support for configureContentNegotiation #4240

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
philwebb opened this issue Oct 19, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Add property support for configureContentNegotiation #4240

philwebb opened this issue Oct 19, 2015 · 4 comments
Labels
status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply

Comments

@philwebb
Copy link
Member

See suggestion in #4220 (comment)
@philwebb philwebb added this to the 1.3.0.RC1 milestone Oct 19, 2015
@philwebb
Copy link
Member Author

@wilkinsona @rstoyanchev I've got some code sketched out here but I'm having second thoughts about adding it. Do you think it makes sense to offer this as a property? After all, it's not too onerous to add your own WebMvcConfigurerAdapter and perhaps we're best to not go too far down the "code by properties" route?

@wilkinsona
Copy link
Member

It's coding by properties, IMO, and I agree that's a route we don't want to go down

@snicoll
Copy link
Member

snicoll commented Oct 20, 2015

+1 - Map<String,String> is a smell IMO.

@rstoyanchev
Copy link
Contributor

Indeed it's already straight forward to configure.

@philwebb philwebb removed this from the 1.3.0.RC1 milestone Oct 20, 2015
@philwebb philwebb added the status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply label Oct 20, 2015
@wilkinsona wilkinsona mentioned this issue Nov 5, 2015
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@rstoyanchev @snicoll @philwebb @wilkinsona