2009/8/17 Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz_at_sun.com>:
> On Aug 14, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think this violates anything specific to Guice's approach to
>>> ensuring all things are bound at module initialization (e.g. so one could
>>> output a dependency graph). It does however, make things less explicit due
>>> to the integration of the meta provider. But i would not expect most
>>> developers to create meta providers and instead they would be created by the
>>> much smaller set of framework developers to be reused. But, i suspect the
>>> probability of this concept getting accepted by the Guice developers may
>>> well be close to zero...
>>>
>> I suspect you might be right.
>>
>> I'm also going to play a little with GuiceyFruit and see if James got
>> anywhere on this sort of thing. But I suspect he's not focused on
>> integration with frameworks.
>
> IIUC James's managed to get most (if not all of his patches in some form or
> other accepted) thus GuiceyFruit no longer needs to maintain its own patched
> version of Guice.
There's still one patch remaining :). There's no way to iterate
through the objects owned by a scope; so there's no easy way with the
out of the box guice to implement @PreDestroy; so there's a pending
patch and a patched guice in GuiceyFruit still for that. But other
than @PreDestroy, everything else is vanilla guice.
> Constructor injection integration is still on the TODO list.
Yeah. It seems Guice folks are obsessed with forcing @Inject
everywhere, even if there's a perfectly suitable alternative
annotation like @Resource etc.
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/