2009/3/24 Endre Stølsvik <[email protected]> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 19:23, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would've thought more likely 2.1 (or 2.x) as this wouldn't require a > major > > API change > > Failing to start if proxies would be needed are a kind of invasive API > change, wouldn't you think? I guess this have to be configurable, with > default on as in "do create proxies". >
as you say, this could be configurable... waiting until v3 sounds like a long time :) > > do you perhaps have a test-case where you wouldn't expect a proxy, but do > > get one? > > No, I don't - but I don't think this issue in any way isn't fully > understood. I just said "Yes!" and elaborated slightly on what I as a > user find un-good with it: It is not as I "wouldn't expect a proxy", > because the reason for getting it is very simple. It is that /where/ > you get it is indeterministic: If A depends on B that needs A, then > where is the proxy inserted? Maybe one config would work, and another > not: By adding some pretty much unrelated bindings into the system, > you all of a sudden get a proxy-access-error because the order got > changed (the proxy is created for the other place). indeterminism isn't good, so at least I (personally) would be interested in an example where adding an unrelated binding introduced a proxy... especially wrt. a proxy-access-error (are you perhaps using OSGi?) Also it is not possible to break the cycle by inserting a setter on either A > or B - > Guice blatantly still creates the proxy. > again an example of this would be useful as that would help people develop a solution - again speaking personally, while I don't have time to create such examples, having an existing example to play around with would help focus my mind on contributing a patch ;) This is all "as I've understood it", but Bob effectively, IIUC, said > as much, which means that he know exactly where the situation lies. > yes, I think Bob and Jesse have a good understanding of this last time I checked Guice was supposed to only use proxies where necessary (or for method interception) but this might have changed in the latest code... Endre. > -- Cheers, Stuart --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
