Well the atinject list isn't publicly writeable, but I submitted an issue at https://code.google.com/p/atinject/issues/detail?id=28 which got posted to the list too so hopefully people see it.
Also atinject-observer seems broken, it's missing all 4 posts from 2012 and later. On Tuesday, 8 April 2014 11:29:03 UTC-4, Sam Berlin wrote: > > 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]<javascript:> > > 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> 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.
