It was binding… it just wasn't binding to what you imagined - it was binding to
a specifically named binding pool. So it was your request for an instance that
wasn't correct.
This line:
> > bind(KeyedObjectPool.class).to(Key.get(KeyedObjectPool.class,
> > Names.named("pool")));
is a fun one, and possibly confusing for people. In this case, Jared is
suggesting that you bind one key in the binder to another. Basically he's
aliasing the general, un-qualified binding to point to the qualified binding.
I feel like we need some more explicit way to do that so we don't make things
more confusing.
Christian.
--
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.
