On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the answer! > > I have real Singletons depending on objects that would be scoped as > reloadable. Just put them in the reloadable scope too! This scope is a sub-scope of Singleton and a super-scope of Session and Request, so you can't inject a reloadable-scope object into a Singleton or a session-scope object into a reloadable-scope one. It's lamentable that Guice still won't explicitly flag that as an error; it was one of the things I most wished we could have made it do from the very beginning. The scope containment hierarchy must be obeyed. Of course, Provider-injection can be used for the pesky backward dependencies, but it's better to try to avoid those. I don't see how you could end up with two objects from different "instances" of a reloadable scope (or "configuration scope") injected into the same target. I strongly recommend running far away from the ideas of mutable or "resettable" singletons or providers. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
