On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:01 AM, dg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> just
>
> bind(MyClass.class);
>
>
Do you even have to do that? I thought JIT bindings were created when none
existed, as long as you have a no-arg constructor or inject classes that are
either bound or also have a no-arg constructor.
Here are two JUnit test I wrote to try this out:
@Test
public void inject_no_arg_constructor_without_binding() {
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector();
TestEntity instance = injector.getInstance(TestEntity.class);
assertNotNull(instance);
}
@Test
public void
inject_one_arg_constructor_that_takes_TestEntity_without_binding() {
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector();
InjectedEntity injectedEntity =
injector.getInstance(InjectedEntity.class);
assertNotNull(injectedEntity);
assertNotNull(injectedEntity.testEntity);
}
>From the newly-updated wiki page: "
While it is not recommended practice, sometimes you might need to bind a
concrete class without having an interface to which to bind it."
Like Jon Vaughan, I'm also fairly new to Guice. Why is this considered bad
practice, if the interface would not raise the level of abstraction?
And is there a difference between bind(MyClass.class) and not binding at
all?
Moandji
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
