I did not discuss this, but it's an interesting point. Private modules should solve your issue. All the bindings Names.bindProperties creates will be private to the module. Robbie
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Leigh Klotz <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's interesting to me that you show the PropertiesModule example. > Guice bindProperties has always seemed a toy to me, as it seems that > is missing a level of indirection. I guess the design is that > Injector is the sole level of hierarchy, and anything else is done > with dotted property name conventions. > > Maybe with child injectors and private modules, it's possible to make > use of Guice bindProperties as an adapter between properties files and > injected Strings and still maintain the specificity that multiple > property files provide, but at least as of Guice 1.0, it seems that > bindProperties eliminates all the encapsulation that people use > properties files for in favor of a global registry, much like > java.lang.System properties. > > I'd be interested to hear if in the talk track you addressed this > issue. > > Leigh. > > On Feb 17, 1:17 pm, Robbie Vanbrabant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I just finished a Guice presentation at the Belgian JUG. They didn't tape > > the event, but if anyone is interested, you can find the slides here: > http://code.google.com/p/garbagecollected/downloads/list > > (it's the Enterprise Guice one) > > > > The slides are actually not an incredibly great reference because I spent > a > > lot of time in the code, but maybe you'll have a smile or two. :) > > > > Cheers > > Robbie > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
