David Král

I think that so far this PR should be merged as is (with some more options I will push) and without the introspection stuff you brought up, since it is...

This PR is mainly about 3rd party class customization and to be simple to use. To support introspector API properly, user would have to be able to obtain all the...

> Fine, just means this feature will be postponed too. You mean this PR? > As mentionned this means you do release R "feature F", release R+r "feature F was...

> This got proven a very bad way to do API. Lead to misleading and ambiguous experience to end users. What other suggestions do you have? I am really trying...

Well... it's not that simple as you are still claiming it to be. Alright lets do some tests here. ``` public class Pojo { private String valueOne; //getters and setters...

1. you are registering the names as a property? 2. This is not about how often something happens. This is about possibility to do the same customization in runtime as...

> yes but I assume what you want is not a customizer but an actual ModelProvider which would also need a Supplier and Consumer to get/set the value of a...

> In one very particular case yes, in all others I don't think so. Plus, it duplicates the model which is a big issue for me. That it duplicates something...

It is not backwards incompatibility. It is a bug. It should be there only once.

@VerKWer This is absolutely fine. If you found a solution, just create PR and assign me as a reviewer :-)