A workaround it to use providers for @OfflineDatabase. A bit clumsy but it works. The good part is that I don't need @LiveDatabase annotation and main module is not affected by its offline version. http://pastie.org/1001680
Maybe I have a design issue? Anyone have a better idea? Octavian On Jun 9, 6:16 pm, Octavian <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm studying now Guice and have some trouble understanding private > modules. From example withrobotlegs I found how to initialize > similar trees of objects with different configuration but my concrete > case pushed me further. > > I have an application with a lot of services that work with live > database. In case of internet connection drops, the application > detects it and switches to services that work with offline database. > Out of N services, only 2-3 work with offline database. I found a way > to do this with annotation bindings but I feel somewhat uncomfortable. > I have to inject my services with @LiveDatabase annotation for normal > use, and @OfflineDatabase for offline services. Is there a way to > inject my services for normal use without annotation, and for remote > with annotation? > > I tried to bind and expose services without annotation, but this does > not work... > > My testng case here:http://pastie.org/997886 > > Thank you very much! > > Octavian -- 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.
