On 10-07-02 19:58, Chris Tucker wrote: > You can achieve what you want using a technique described on the FAQ page: > http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#How_can_I_inject_optional_parameters_into_a_constructor? > > It's not the most elegant thing in the world (you'll need a *Holder > class for each optional parameter, and you'll have to change the type of > your ctor args), but it gets the job done and does so without requiring > any nasty setter/field injection.
Not really, I need to do a setter/field injection in the Holder. This is no problem, but one more class for each parameter is quite bad, especially with my parameters being ints and strings, so I need an annotation for each of them (I hate using @Named). This means 2 classes per parameter, don't you feel it's too much? Isn't this problem common enough to be solved? I'm quite sure, it'd require only small changes in Guice. I feel that constructor injection should be at least as good as setter/field injection in each aspect. -- 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.
