Thanks for driving this Jesse!
I'm inclined to favour option (B).
It seems a lot cleaner than requiring users to perform a sequence of *
instancof* checks. Implementing/Overriding the appropriate methods allows
the user to get exactly what they want instead of requiring them to sift
through various options and cast.
To allow for anonymous class implementations of the visitor the extension
author could define a simple abstract class:*
public abstract class BaseAssistedVisitor<T, V>
extends DefaultBindingTargetVisitor<T, V>
implements AssistedBindingVisitor<T, V> {}*
Granted this isn't useful if the client wants to implement multiple visitor
interfaces, but it does provide a convenience class for the cases where
they're only interested in the one extension type.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:59 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> Since Google Groups isn't well suited for code formatting, I've cross
> posted this to the Guice wiki. That site may be easier to read.
> http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/ExtensionSPI
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
