If we can avoid a new annotation I would be for it =)
Dhanji.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Mikkel Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IT seems like the new updates behave differently. It's enough to just
> declare a function @Provides @Exposed @Named and skip the
> expose() method entirely ?
>
> On Nov 30, 11:53 pm, Mikkel Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sorry im using chrome and it suddenly posted :)
>>
>> OK anyway, what i was saying
>>
>> @Provides
>> @Exposed
>> @Named("boxer1")
>> public MovingRagdoll exposeRagdoll() {
>> return boxer;
>> }
>> public void configurePrivateBindings() {
>> super.configurePrivateBindings();
>>
>> expose(MovingRagdoll.class).annotatedWith(Names.named("boxer1"));
>> }
>>
>> Looks very clumsy to me and its not obvious to anyone why it's
>> necessary. (with the extra @exposed @Named function
>>
>> Why not ?
>>
>> public void configurePrivateBindings() {
>> expose(MovingRagdoll.class).annotatedWith(Names.named
>> ("boxer1")).toInstance(boxer);
>> }
>>
>> Problem with the @Exposed @Named notation is that you cant reuse your
>> module, you have to write another module that injects (exposes) to
>> another name.
>>
>> expose(MovingRagdoll.class).annotatedWith(Names.named(nameOfBoxer); is
>> reusing..
>>
>> Hope this is clear.
> >
>
--
http://twitter.com/dhanji
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
