Doesn't @Provides work by wrapping those method invocations with a Provider instance? If you do @Provides Foo you will already be able to inject a provider for Foo. Not sure if that is what you mean.
Robbie On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Sam Berlin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > It's currently not possible to have an @Provides Provider<Foo> method in a > Module (Guice throws an exception saying binding to Provider is not > allowed). While technically this is achievable by having a class implement > Provider & binding to the class, I find the shorthand of @Provides to be > much much easier & simpler (with parameters passed into the method as > dependencies, etc..). Would it be possible to relax that restriction and > allow a binding to a Provider act the same as bind(..).toProvider(...)? > > Thanks! > > Sam > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
