Gili Tzabari wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > I am not so concerned about @Inject annotations Well, you should be. Since Guice does *not* provide a small jar containing only the annotations, you either have to add the complete guice jar as dependency or provide your own jar. http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/issues/detail?id=106
Regards, Johannes > or runtime costs so > much as "API pollution". For example, I worry users would be off-put by > having to do: > > Injector.getClass(Toolkit.class); > > instead of > > Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit() > > Are you suggesting that I should expose the latter method that invokes > the former internally? From a usability point of view, factory methods > look a lot nicer coming off the class than having to go through an extra > level of indirection (Injector)... > > Gili > > Kevin Bourrillion wrote: > >> The goal of Guice is for your code to not truly depend on it. However, >> the fact that @Inject and interfaces like Provider are not in the JDK -- >> yet! <http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=330> -- means you do end up having >> to depend on Guice in these small ways. Still, you can keep your Module >> definitions in a separate artifact, and you can offer Spring >> configurations as well or even static factories that wire up your nice >> DI-friendly classes by hand if that's something you want to do. The >> guice JAR file that would be required at runtime could be very small. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Gili <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm about to publish an open-source Java library and I was thinking >> that it would benefit from using Guice in a couple of places to >> improve testability. My next thought is that users would avoid my >> library if I force Guice on them. I don't want to cross the line >> between providing a library to providing a framework. >> >> Has anyone else run across this before? Is this the reason we rarely >> see Guice or Spring being used by other open-source libraries? >> >> I use Guice everywhere in my internal application code, but I'd be >> reluctant to use a library if it exposed IoC through its API. >> >> Gili >> >> >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
