Repository navigation
Escaping API inconsistencies #1577
Description
Activity
So we'd need to add the escaping scheme to the writer - creating
ExpositionFormatWriterWithEscaping.If more users fall into this trap, then I'll consider adding this new API.
This issue has been marked as stale due to 12 months of inactivity. It will be automatically closed if there is no further activity over the next 30 days.
I think this is still valid.
If I understand correctly, this is approximately how I should produce an output:
The problem with this is that the API forces me to pass the accept header twice, so theoretically I can do this:
Which can lead to inconsistencies, it is easy to misuse the API.
I'm wondering if something like this would make sense:
and the writer would have the
EscapingScheme.The writer still can be cached but it would be a little more than today.