[jclouds/jclouds] Fix for Java 1.8 and Guice 4.1 (#1127)

[William L Thomson Jr <no...@github.com>]

core/src/main/java/org/jclouds/rest/internal/TransformerForRequest.java:
Fix for Java 1.8 and Guice 4.1. Not sure if this is correct, but does
compile. Committing to see if it passes tests to confirm fix or not.

Modified per @nacx on jclouds PR1036
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/1036#issuecomment-319904820

Please see other PR for issues, etc. Feel free to edit commit message per jclouds formatting. Its an old style I was using :)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/1127

-- Commit Summary --

  * core/src/main/java/org/jclouds/rest/internal/TransformerForRequest.java:

-- File Changes --

    M core/src/main/java/org/jclouds/rest/internal/TransformerForRequest.java (3)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/1127.patch
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/1127.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/1127

Re: [jclouds/jclouds] Fix for Java 1.8 and Guice 4.1 (#1127)

[Ignasi Barrera <no...@github.com>]

Merged to [master](http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/jclouds/commit/6de7974a) and [2.0.x](http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/jclouds/commit/78881d2f). Many thanks @wltjr!

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/1127#issuecomment-320035529

Re: [jclouds/jclouds] Fix for Java 1.8 and Guice 4.1 (#1127)

[Ignasi Barrera <no...@github.com>]

Closed #1127.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/1127#event-1191828120

Re: [jclouds/jclouds] Fix for Java 1.8 and Guice 4.1 (#1127)

[William L Thomson Jr <no...@github.com>]

Sure thing, thanks for the suggestion. I am more a fan of short hand, not having variables when not needed. This was a good learning lesson. It seems when using generics, sometimes that is bad, as it does not pass along the correct generic type. First time I have seen such, but good to be aware in case I run into it again :)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/1127#issuecomment-320035955