Anthony Restaino

This is temporarily fixed in release 1.1.1. I am leaving the issue open though as a reminder to myself to revisit once there is some resolution to the issue in...

Try excluding the nullability annotations from the stag library, there must a conflict between the class declarations: ``` implementation ("com.vimeo.stag:stag-library:2.6.0") { exclude group: 'org.jetbrains', module: 'annotations' } ``` I think...

I think in theory, stag should be able to be made into an "aggregating" processor, as it generates type adapters for annotated types and then aggregates them into a single...

Can you provide an example of what you are seeing? Stag shouldn't be interfering with anything data binding related, and if it is, it would be helpful to know where...

There are a couple problems with using a map rather than the current implementation - One problem with creating something like a static `HashMap` is that we need to inject...

I benchmarked the if/else vs using a `HashMap` and sure enough, it's 3-4x faster. I'll make the change to switch to a static map for stateless `TypeAdapters`. There was a...

I'm not sure I completely understand the situation. Is this the sort of structure you're referring to? ```java class ClassA { T unknownField; } class ClassB extends ClassA { //...

Okay that's a much simpler scenario than I thought, thanks for the clarification. This is definitely an important use case, i'll think on it.

Okay, so if we introduce a `WriteRuntimeType` annotation, then the generated writing code could look like the following: ```java class Parent { String name; } class Child extends Parent {...

Do you think it's worth implementing the serialization half of this anyway? That would at least mirror gson's behavior, but at the same time I feel like it's not worth...