Also extremely evil suggestion that should never be followed:
public class MyFinalFieldInjectees {
@Inject private final Dep dep = null; //this will work
...
}
But I advise strongly against using this as your classes are not testable.
In other words, use Logan's recommendation to redesign your classes so they
are smaller and more composable.
Dhanji.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Logan Johnson <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> Others may have different advice here. This is just my two cents.
>
> I've found that if a class has a large number of dependencies, that class
> usually violates the single responsibility principle. A good indicator of
> this is that when you write tests for such a class, the actual subset of
> dependencies needed to pass the test is contextual and varies from test to
> test. (In other words, the class has low cohesion.) Generally I try to
> break those classes down into smaller, more cohesive, composable units.
>
> Sometimes though a perfectly good class does have an annoyingly large
> dependency list. There I still prefer constructor injection, because I feel
> strongly that hard dependencies should be absolutely required in order to
> instantiate the object. Anything that's nullable in a constructor really
> either belongs in another class, or should be provided via a setter method
> (which you can mark @Inject(optional=true) for Guice).
>
> --Logan
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello, All!
>>
>> A have quite a large hierarchy of classes. Root classes have smal
>> count of injections, but children classes have more and more. And it
>> is become painful (a lot of boilerplate) to promote all this
>> injections through constructor injections, when you have large
>> hierarchy of classes.
>>
>> Currently I have a solution - do not use constructor injections,
>> instead use field injections.
>> But this aproach makes impossible to use my classes without Guice and
>> I cant use final modifier (which I like very mach and I can use it
>> with constructor injections).
>>
>> Any sugestions?
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
