On Oct 13, 11:45 am, "Bob Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jesse, maybe we should inject the Injector from the context, i.e. the
> injector being used to create the current object graph? Then, we'd need only
> one binding to Injector in the root Injector.
We need to inject the Injector that owns the
binding, not the one that's creating the graph.
Consider a hypothetical app that has child
injectors for the persistence and web layers:
class PersistenceLayer {
@Inject Injector injector;
protected <T> Persister<T> getPersister(Class<T> c) {
return injector.getInstance(c);
}
}
class WebLayer {
@Inject Injector injector;
void serviceRequest(HttpRequest request) {
Class<? implements Handler> handler =
mapRequestToHandler(request);
injector.getInstance(handler);
handler.handle(request);
}
}
If the application binding depends on both of
these child injectors, they should be the
appropriate ones.
class Application {
@Inject PersistenceLayer persistenceLayer;
@Inject WebLayer webLayer;
}
This is because our model assumes that child
injectors can promote bindings to the parent via
hierarchical modules.
Cheers,
Jesse
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
