On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Leigh Klotz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> OK, maybe I'm being dense and it will all flash for me in a minute,
> but it seems like this new feature, while better for an all-Guice, all-
> servlet system does not satisfy the same use cases as before.
It absolutely does--please explain your case to us! You will definitely
prefer Guice Servlet 2 as it allows for constructor injection too.
>
> My web.xml file can't be empty of servlet definitions, because I don't
> control the entire file. I have a couple of servlets that are the
> entry point to the fairly self-contained org.restlet world that uses
> Guice extensively, but there's plenty of other stuff in web.xml
> (legacy to me, important to others) that will never be in the Guice
> club and will always use servlets.
That's absolutely fine, we specifically designed for this case. You can have
whatever servlet in and out of the club and even dispatch between them (for
the most part).
> (And note that the servlets I have
> are just glue to the web.xml world, and I'd rather live without them,
> so the ServletModule for Guice is just a piece of glue code to me.)
Sure, and you can continue to use it just like that.
>
> So I can just put in new ServletModule(){serve("/shoppingcart")...} in
> my code, and it will all work as long as nobody uses /shoppingcart in
> web.xml?
Yep.
>
>
> Thanks to you and Jesse for taking the time to explain this (and other
> stuff in the past) to me.
Course!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
