Florian Klein

I would preferably fix the existing definition AND create another one for another assertion.

Yes I think that's basically my issue. I'd like if we could have some kind of `&&` operator to narrow things down.

I'd argue that exposing what the server accepts is important for hypermedia scenarios or other scenarios (as described [here](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Content_negotiation#principles_of_content_negotiation)). For a valid router to chose the correct handler based on...

I think I'm hitting this very problem right now. I thought either the `PooledConnection` or the transaction would be handled with `Drop` ? Any idea how to guarantee a correct...

this seems to be a great idea! We can merge what you have already, and potentially improve this if needed. Can you add some tests if possible ? I d'ont...

awesome, thanks!

and sorry for the delay.

oops, it seems you need to rebase your branch in order to merge.

I agree it it qute complicated, however it is a generic implementation, that will work with complex use cases where RSM is mandatory. Currently I had to use RSM because...

oh, my. 1 year later :( I really copy-pasted the java plugin, so I should maybe rename the methods. Thanks for pointing this out.