I do not think it would be a sane strategy for Guice to arbitrary choose an injectable constructor, even if the pattern is defined somewhere. I am a very strong fan of Guice's explicit @Inject behavior when multiple constructors are involved.
As far as a single constructor goes... I'm ambivalent about it. I've written up about 6 or so emails to respond to this thread and discarded them all halfway through writing, because I don't really care either way. But multiple constructors... @Inject is definitely necessary there. Sam On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Gili Tzabari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > JAX-RS takes the strategy of choosing the constructor with the > greatest number of injectable objects. Guice could do the same by > default and @Inject would be used to override it. > > Gili > > Brian Pontarelli wrote: >>> On the plus side - think of the zillions of Java classes out there >>> that Guice would be able to automatically inject without folks having >>> to write their own magic AOP bytecode swizzler, get access to the >>> code, hack it and re-release it or write custom providers. >>> >> >> But every system needs at least one swizzler. Otherwise, how will you >> guarantee maintenance for the next 20 years? ;) >> >> I'm coming around to this idea though. Things currently blow up at >> runtime if you haven't written a provider and there isn't a no-arg >> constructor. Is blowing chunks for multiple constructors any different? >> >> hmmmm...... >> >> -bp >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
