Kevin, I don't think there's any need to separate the annotations either. Java jars sit there innocuously unless they're being used. The only (sortof) argument might be where struts2's @Inject interferes with Guice's.
But I've not heard anyone complain about that before. Dhanji. On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Kevin Bourrillion <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > First off, your code is going to depend on some interfaces like Module and > Provider anyway, so your change with the annotations doesn't really change > anything. I do think it would make sense for us to put these common > interfaces and annotations into their own small JAR file, so you can feel > more light and airy when you depend on only that, and there is a feature > request filed for it (I don't remember if Bob and Jesse agree, though). > > Beyond that, I think that some people, when seeing "import > com.google.inject.Inject", simply imagine a problem where none really > exists. We all work so hard at keeping dependencies out of our code that > when we see that we react against it at a gut level. But in reality, your > classes have no runtime dependency on Guice. If they run as part of an > application that doesn't wish to use Guice, the Guice jar file needn't even > be present on the server at all. > > The idea of "dependency" or "tight coupling" is that "the one cannot > function without the other." But with annotations, this isn't the case. > They're just decoration that don't, and can't, actually do anything. They > sit there, innocuously, in case tools will wish to read them, and otherwise > have no effect whatsoever. They don't impede you from testing your code, or > from using the classes with Spring or just using them normally. > > Hopefully this explains why we have never been convinced there's an actual > problem here. > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Anthony MULLER <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I have a little request about next release of Guice. Currently, we have to >> use @Inject into the code to say that we want Guice "inject here". >> >> My concern is we have "import com.google.inject.Inject;" into the class... >> It is not really 'my' concern but some guys find it is intrusive... >> >> So, my proposal is to indicate to Guice the annotation class to use : >> Guice.setInjectAnnotationType(my.package.MyInject.class); >> >> So, Guice looks now for MyInject annotation (instead of standard Inject >> one) and I don't have the com.google.inject.Inject import in my class... >> >> What do you think about this? >> >> Regards, >> Anthony >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
