Hi guys, why not supporting typesafe config à la owner (ie on an interface where methods are config values)? Would avoid such errors which are very very common actually.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2016-06-06 10:54 GMT+02:00 Werner Keil <[email protected]>: > Yes, this is required by CDI as of now. > It looks rather similar in a "DeltaSpike inspired" config framework used by > a recent client. > > Werner > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:49 AM, John D. Ament <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > All, > > > > Maybe something I'm not clear about. Suppose I have this type safe bean: > > > > public class TypeSafeConfig { > > @Inject > > @Config("populated.value") > > private String populatedValue; > > > > public String getPopulatedValue() { > > return populatedValue; > > } > > } > > > > I was struggling for a while, because I forgot @Inject. I just wanted to > > check - this is required by CDI semantics, right? > > > > If so, I almost wonder if it makes sense to automatically add a post > > construct that populates the values. > > > > John > > >
