If the external application is not going to use Guice, then that means your Provider is just a factory with no other dependency on Guice. Why not expose that and then subclass it for use with Guice in a separate jar?
-Dave On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps... Although if my api interface extends a guice one, I may as well > have used the guice one, right? The user would still need guice libraries > loaded or the IDE would turn somewhat red. Other alternates might include > putting the guice Provider interface into my api jar. However, I'd like to > avoid exposing guice in my external apis. > Thanks for the response... I do appreciate it. Do you have any other > ideas? > -Adrian > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Adam Ruggles <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Couldn't you make your provider interface extend the Guice one? >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:07 AM, AdrianCole <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'd like to minimize the compile-time dependency of guice on an >>> application who wants to use my guiced component. >>> >>> I'd like to provide a method: >>> >>> Provider<Foo> void getFooProvider() >>> >>> Difference is that I'd like to use the interface com.foo.Provider as >>> opposed to the guice one. >>> >>> Is there a way to make this happen? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Adrian >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
