Polymorphic problem about configlib HOT 5 CLOSED

If you annotate Background with @Configuration, do you get the output you want? If yes, that's the intended behavior. In that case, you also don't need to annotate the subclasses with either @Configuration or @Polymorphic.

from configlib.

Thanks, it worked. Is it possibile to remove PolymorphicType section?
background: type: integer
Maybe you could check all possible classes and check if there is a match.

from configlib.

You only need @PolymorphicTypes to define aliases. You don't have to use this annotation but then the Java class name is used.

If you want to use aliases without having to use @PolymorphicTypes that's not possible because there are several ambiguous cases where it is not clear which class should be selected. The most obvious example: If two sub classes have exactly the same name and structure but reside in different packages, then which of the two should I instantiate?

@Configuration
@Polymorphic
public static class Background {}

// in package com.example.bg1
public static class IntegerBackground extends Background {
    private int r, g, b;
}

// in package com.example.bg2
public static class IntegerBackground extends Background {
    private int r, g, b;
}

That's the reason that I either need to have the full Java class name or access to the class literal via the annotation.

from configlib.

Why should you use subclasses if you have same parameters? Couldn't you just make an option in @Polymorphic to enable find class process? If it's enabled and there is a problem you just throw an exception. I just don't like having this section in the config, it could confuse the user.

from configlib.

Well, as I wrote, this is just the most obvious example where there is ambiguity. Also, I'd prefer if we could discuss the details of your feature request in a separate issue (I'm not sure whether I'll be able to implement it anytime soon).

from configlib.