On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM, JN <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm looking seriously into the possibility of using guice for our > project. However, I'm extremely reluctant to pepper our interfaces > and implementation classes with guice injections (based on various > principles and practical concerns, I don't find it a good idea). I'd > like to use guice without using annotations, although I suspect it's > not possible.
> Skimming the documentation, it seems like most of the annotations can > be obviated by doing more work in the module. However, doing an > injection (I'd prefer constructor injection) seems to *require* the > @Inject annotation. Is there any way around this? > Yes, you can use @Provides methods on your module or bind().toConstructor() without any annotations at all. > Are people happy with the annotations-mandatory approach? Is there no > demand for alternate means of configuration? I'd rather just specify > everything explicitly in the module, even if it's a little more > verbose. > > Generally the objection is of the pedantic form, very few of our users actually experience problems with using annotations, and on the contrary find them useful in self-documenting and error-checking. Dhanji. -- 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.
