I think Bob's asking the interesting question..
The point is.. b hasn't been created. If A was going to call a
factory, or 'new B()'.. then that would be a reason to '@Inject B b'
into A.
If you're suggesting that A shouldn't need to know that B needs any
injections... that definitely seems to be a consequence of using one
of these DI frameworks. To be a 'first class citizen', you've gotta be
created via the Injector.. but you also need to not break the chain by
calling 'new'..
In your better example with:
B b;
@Inject D d;
.. Presumably A needs an instance of B, so it would make more sense to
have:
@Inject B b;
@Inject D d;
Or better yet (and this might relieve some of your frustration)...
class A {
private final B b;
private final D d;
@Inject
public A (B b, D d) {
this.b = b;
this.d = d;
}
Are any of us hitting the right note yet?
Phill
On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, Pyrolistical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, a better example would be:
>
> class A {
> B b;
> @Inject D d;
>
> }
>
> class B {
> @Inject C c;
> public void useC() {
> c.doSomething();
> }
>
> }
>
> I still call getInstance on A to Inject D.
>
> On Sep 11, 1:17 pm, Pyrolistical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ok, sorry bad example.
>
> > Its more like:
>
> > class A {
> > B b;
>
> > }
>
> > class B {
> > @Inject C c;
> > public void useC() {
> > c.doSomething();
> > }
>
> > }
>
> > I don't have @Inject on B, because class A know B needs C Injected.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"google-guice" 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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
