I'd recommend using OptionalBinder in modern Guice. On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 12:29:24 UTC-4, Geoff Little wrote: > > Does this remain the recommended way to deal with Optional constructor > arguments? > > On Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 8:21:39 PM UTC-5, Jesse Wilson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Oct 13, 1:10 pm, Martin Grajcar <grajc...@seznam.cz> wrote: >> > Do you think it's bad idea? >> >> Yeah, I don't think it pulls its weight. With the current solution, >> you get to supply your own fallback value such as NoOpAirConditioner. >> If we permitted optionality on a parameter-by-parameter basis, our >> poor users would have to cope with null. > >
-- 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 google-guice+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-guice@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-guice. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-guice/735ab1e6-d54a-4871-9098-d74bfb59865f%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
