Subtyping Scope and implementing it is the solution I am currently using, but it also involves changing all injected dependency types from Scope to this subtype. Unfortunately this is an annoying kind of work and introduces another indirection, without an (understandable) need for it.
Is there any chance to get this behaviour changed in the current trunk? As long as Guice does not use it's own DI mechanism to create the Injector there should be no drawbacks as far as I see. BR, Sven On Sep 8, 5:28 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're right, it might be worthwhile to allow > users to bind Scope instances. Usually when > I'm binding a scope, I bind a specific subtype > of Scope (in my case, the binding I create is for > SimpleScope.class) > > Will binding a subtype work for you? > > On Sep 8, 3:14 am, tzwoenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just because of curiosity: Why are we not allowed to use some of Guice > > internal types for binding, aside from the already prebound ones like > > State and Injector? > > > I was just stumbling over binding scopes to support some kind of > > preconfigured scope chain. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
