Reduce ambiguity around RegisterForReflection's defaults

[zakkak]

Motivated by #24474 (comment)

[humcqc]

Hi @zakkak ,
Thanks for this clarification.
Interesting, in my case I think it's better to use the ignoreNested attribute set to false.
Are we sure the default behavior should be set to true ?
I mean all people that will have nested attributes would like to have them registered automatically or I miss some performance concerns ?

[zakkak]

Changing ignoreNested's default could indeed be an acceptable trade-off. I don't expect classes to have a large number of nested classes (as a result the impact is expected to be insignificant), and for those that do there is always the option to change the default.

cc @geoand (since you originally reviewed #9182)

[zakkak]

@geoand thanks for the review. Do you have any comments regarding changing the default for ignoreNested? See #38496 (comment).

[geoand]

Yeah, I think it would be fine

[zakkak]

@humcqc would you like to create a PR changing the default and the corresponding documentation?

[humcqc]

@humcqc would you like to create a PR changing the default and the corresponding documentation?

will do after this one: #36594

[quarkus-bot]

Status for workflow Quarkus CI

This is the status report for running Quarkus CI on commit b25bb6a.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.

You can consult the Develocity build scans.