Robbie,
It seems that if I annotate a constructor argument as @Nullable I
still need to bind it. This isn't quite the same as "optional=true" in
Guice 1.0. What's the line of reasoning for this mismatch?
Gili
On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, "Robbie Vanbrabant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> No, Guice supports any annotation named "Nullable". So you can create it
> yourself. This means you can also reuse IntelliJ IDEA's @Nullable, for
> example.
> Robbie
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Gili Tzabari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
>
> > That's odd. Why does Nullable only exist in test/com/google/inject?
> > I was going to try Jesse's snapshot20081016 but it doesn't include this
> > class. I suspect he only included files compiled from src/*
>
> > Gili
>
> > Robbie Vanbrabant wrote:
> > > Guice trunk has support for @Nullable.
> > > @Inject
> > > public MyClass(Some param, @Nullable Other param) { ... }
>
> > > Robbie
>
> > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Gili Tzabari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that JAX-RS knows how to inject some classes, Guice
> > > the others, and there is no way for me to use constructor injection
> > > where some objects come from Guice and others from JAX-RS. At least,
> > I
> > > don't know how this could be done.
>
> > > As for the package-private constructor approach, I'd want to
> > > use one
> > > constructor for production (without UriInfo) and another one for
> > > testing
> > > (with UriInfo) and Guice injecting both of them (which you can't do).
>
> > > Would it be possible to have a single Guice-injected constructor
> > > that includes objects such as UriInfo which Guice doesn't know how to
> > > inject, then telling Guice to simply bind them to null at production
> > > time and a mock object at testing time? Somehow I suspect Guice
> > > doesn't
> > > let you inject null...
>
> > > Gili
>
> > > Robbie Vanbrabant wrote:
> > > > In general you should dependency inject it, using constructor
> > > > injection or method injection.
> > > > Field injection is only a good idea in code that you don't need to
> > > > test. I would image that JAX-RS does more than just field
> > injection?
> > > > If that doesn't work, you could add a constructor and make it
> > > package
> > > > private. Or create a builder using a library that makes it easy
> > > > (shameless self-promotion:http://tinyurl.com/builderbuilder).
>
> > > > Robbie
>
> > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Gili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Hi,
>
> > > > I've got code that runs on top of JAX-RS and Guice. All my
> > > classes use
> > > > construction injection. One such class has the following field:
>
> > > > @Context UriInfo uri;
>
> > > > that is injected after-the-fact by JAX-RS.
>
> > > > When I try unit testing this code I run into a problem
> > > because I'm not
> > > > sure how to inject a mock object in place of "uri". Guice isn't
> > > > injecting it in the first place. I was thinking of adding
> > > UriInfo to
> > > > the constructor and making it optional but Guice doesn't
> > > support that
> > > > sort of thing. Alternatively I could add a setUri() method
> > > to be used
> > > > exclusively by the test framework but this seems a bit ugly.
>
> > > > I'm new to unit testing. I would appreciate some advice.
>
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Gili
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
