Yes indeed, I don't provide an entry point for my lib-like module. However, there're handfull of other singletons one might have a necessity to have an access to (EventBus was just an example). E.g. com.google.gwt.core.client.Scheduler. Prior to GIN we had a sole option to obtain an instance by calling Scheduler.get(). Now I try to avoid mixing *GWT.create(), other static factories* and *@Inject *within client's code and therefore *prefer injection *anywhere possible. But here comes the same problem. Suppose, I *injected* the scheduler in some class within my lib-like module and intentionally left no binding within my lib config module. Now the client of my lib-like module either starts to get *"no binding found"* exceptions, or even worse - silently execute with new scheduler instances injected every time (if e.g. there was a default constructor for Scheduler).
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 9:28:34 PM UTC+3, Jens wrote: > > Sounds like your visual components act as libraries, thus not having their > own GWT entry point. > > IMHO your visual components should not provide bindings for classes they > do not own. That means app wide singletons like an EventBus must be > provided by the app that includes the visual component. > > -- J. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" 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 https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
