2008/10/6 James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It seems if you have an object with a single public constructor - you > still must add the @Inject annotation. I just wondered what the > rational was for this - it kinda feels a tad overzealous? I kinda like > the idea of encouraging folks to write classes with a single > constructor (similar to the google collections folks found when > writing collections) and as a small side benefit it would be kinda > nice that they can omit the @Inject. > > I guess the worry is, if you refactor the code and add a new > constructor, code might break. But it'd be pretty obvious what broke > as you make the refactoring, so it'd be easy to add the @Inject when > you do want to add another constructor. Any other reasons for this > strict rule?
Bob/Jesse - any feedback on the reasoning for this restriction - forcing a mandatory @Inject on a class with a single public constructor with arguments? -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration http://open.iona.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
