Status: New
Owner: ----
New issue 747 by [email protected]: Checked provider and
requireExplicitBindings interaction
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/issues/detail?id=747
Currently using checked providers extension together with
requireExplicitBindings() call on the binder require presence of explicit
binding for the checked provider:
binder().requireExplicitBindings();
ThrowingProviderBinder.create(binder())
.bind(CustomCheckedProvider.class, CustomObject.class)
.to(DefaultCustomCheckedProvider.class);
bind(DefaultCustomCheckedProvider.class); // Without this Injector
configuration fails
However, there is no such problem with regular providers, and I can use
them without explicit bindings:
binder().requireExplicitBindings();
bind(CustomObject.class).toProvider(RegularCustomObjectProvider.class);
// no explicit binding of RegularCustomObjectProvider is required
I think that explicit binding of checked provider is redundant and should
not be required; after all, we specify that we want to use it in
ThrowingProviderBinder call.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"google-guice-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice-dev?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
