{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OmniLayer/OmniJ/issues/101","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OmniLayer/OmniJ/issues/101/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OmniLayer/OmniJ/issues/101/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OmniLayer/OmniJ/issues/101/events","html_url":"https://github.com/OmniLayer/OmniJ/pull/101","id":105909020,"number":101,"title":"Begin conversion from BigInteger to OmniValue and Coin","user":{"login":"msgilligan","id":61612,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/61612?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan","html_url":"https://github.com/msgilligan","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":4,"created_at":"2015-09-10T22:10:41Z","updated_at":"2015-09-10T23:24:19Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OmniLayer/OmniJ/pulls/101","html_url":"https://github.com/OmniLayer/OmniJ/pull/101","diff_url":"https://github.com/OmniLayer/OmniJ/pull/101.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/OmniLayer/OmniJ/pull/101.patch"},"body":"This PR is partial conversion, but @dexX7 if you think it's OK to merge it to master, I'd like to do so. There are a lot of changes and I'd rather not have to keep merging them.\r\n\r\nregTests are currently passing.\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OmniLayer/OmniJ/issues/comments/139410035","html_url":"https://github.com/OmniLayer/OmniJ/pull/101#issuecomment-139410035","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OmniLayer/OmniJ/issues/101","id":139410035,"user":{"login":"msgilligan","id":61612,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/61612?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan","html_url":"https://github.com/msgilligan","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/msgilligan/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-09-10T23:24:19Z","updated_at":"2015-09-10T23:24:19Z","body":"> 1000000000.willets would be the same as 1000000000.indivisible, so I'm not sure if it's needed either.\r\n\r\nThere may be cases (return data from some of the RPCs) where we are getting token values and we don't know whether they are divisible or not. In that case we may need to create a type that implements `OmniValue`, but is neither `OmniDivisibleValue` or `OmniIndivisibleValue`. I'm not sure if we'll need it -- I'm hoping we won't.\r\n\r\nNote that currently there is a `.getPropertyType()` method that can be called on `OmniValue` that seems to be useful.\r\n\r\n(Personally I wish there was no distinction between divisible and indivisible tokens in the Spec or the low-level implementation.)"}}