Yeah, I'd try the atinject list & if it gets no response, try the individual lists. Hopefully it won't be too controversial a question.
sam On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Tavian Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, 7 April 2014 17:47:48 UTC-4, Sam Berlin wrote: >> >> I'd be open to any of the following: >> a) Hard-error on a qualifer/bindingannotation on types >> b) Support qualifer/bindingannotation on types, but fail if it also >> exists on the variable >> > > Makes sense. I do think one of them should be done before Guice 4.0 is out > since that'll be the first release supporting Java 8 anyway. I'll try to > cook up a patch for (a) and then (b) on top of it. > > >> Though, since this'd be a change to the way jsr330 things are >> interpreted, seems like it'd be best to poll the jsr330 folks and make sure >> all various implementations (Dagger, Spring, etc..) are on-board with the >> same solution. >> > > Good point. The atinject list seems dead though, should I post there or > manually poll Dagger, Spring, HK2, CDI, etc.? > > >> sam >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Tavian Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Java 8 allows annotations to appear everywhere a type is used, which >>> allows for things like >>> >>> Provider<@Named("name") Thing> provider; >>> >>> instead of >>> >>> @Named("name") Provider<Thing> provider; >>> >>> The first way, to me, seems more semantically accurate, because it reads >>> "provider of named thing" rather than "named provider of thing." However, >>> there would obviously be a lot of complication in choosing to support this >>> syntax. It would be difficult to use the new AnnotatedType reflection APIs >>> and still support Java 6/7. Ambiguous cases like >>> >>> @Named("name") Provider<@Named("otherName") Thing> provider; >>> >>> would have to be detected too. Of the three choices: >>> >>> (1) Ignore binding annotations on types >>> (2) Support binding annotations on types >>> (3) Give a warning/error for binding annotations on types, >>> >>> I assume Guice is sticking with (1) for now? If someone wrote a >>> patchset to support AnnotatedTypes in a backwards-compatible way (strategy >>> pattern for example), would (2), (3), or neither be most likely to get >>> merged? >>> >>> -- >>> 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/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
