On Nov 25, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Brian Pontarelli <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Brian Pontarelli <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> The JVM guarantees that an object and its parent objects are constructed and >> ready for use after the constructor finishes. It makes no guarantees for >> fields, especially if they are accessible outside of the object (setters). >> >> >> Let’s be specific, here. Assume no setters. >> >> class Foo { >> private String a; >> >> public void Foo() { >> this.a = ... >> } >> How would I be able to access Foo#a without a being initialized? >> >> > > You can’t. > > > Glad we got that sorted out. Hopefully, this clarifies my position about > field injection vs/ constructor injection. Haha. Nice clip. Very "mainstream news" of you. ;) I think at this point everyone sees your position. I still disagree with it. I’ve said my piece and I’ll now retire from the thread. — Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
