Alternatively, how about having the ability to return all Singletons
associated with an injector, then iterating through them and closing
them as appropriate. Meaning, the user would define some closable
interface and cast his Singletons to that type before invoking close().
Just a thought.
Gili
Robbie Vanbrabant wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:41 PM, James Strachan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> Well right now noone calls close() and things are OK. Not calling
> close() is not the end of the world; it just provides a nice graceful
> shutdown above and beyond killing the JVM or finalisers which may or
> may not be invoked - so its mostly a kinda optimisation really.
>
>
> I understand the need. I'd just consider putting close() on a
> different class. Not everyone needs it, and it's strange to have a
> close() on something that's called "Injector".
> As a middle ground, you could create a subtype of Injector specific
> for lifecycle management. MulticastInjector or something :-)
> Guice.createMulticastInjector(...)
>
> Robbie
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
