Issue 183: Scopes.SINGLETON does not cope with nested injectors
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/issues/detail?id=183

Comment #3 by zorzella:
Even if I buy that, and at the risk of being pedantic, Foo's constructor  
needs not to
start any thread -- but simply to communicate (directly or indirectly) with  
one. Say
(for simplicity) that there's a static boolean "go" that blocks Baz's "run"  
method
from progressing, and that Foo's constructor has access to an already  
started
Thread(Baz) (and still "join"s it, of course). Same dead lock.

As a conceptual mark, it seems very clear (to me) that Guice's SINGLETON
implementation *conceptually* makes the (often correct, and even more often  
harmless,
though naive) assumption that there's a single Injector created per  
ClassLoader.

Still conceptually, it is more correct that one would be forced to create  
an instance
of a "SingletonScope class" to be the Singleton scope for *their* Injector,  
so that
the injector could lock on "this"... That at the cost of some verboseness.

Even though this (as a mandatory change) is not possible at this point (I  
don't
think), it would behoove us to have a way for people to instantiate their  
own
"Singleton"s, if they so choose to...



-- 
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to