Re: [picocontainer-dev] patches for *full* binding-annotation capability - key take aways & thoughts

Paul Hammant wrote:
> The style of binding annotations is like so -
> 
>      @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>      @Target({ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER})      @Bind
>      public static @interface BindOne {}
> 
> You'll make one of these per place where dis-ambiguation is needed.
> @Bind is marking this annotation as being one that can be used for
> dependency-injection binding (its in Pico's codebase, whereas BindOne
> will be in the customer's codebase)
> 
> You can drop either of ElementType.FIELD or ElementType.PARAMETER
> depending on which flavor of DI you are doing.
> 
> Unfortunately there's no way to do the much more terse (maybe in JDK
> 9.0) -
> 
>     public @interface BindOne extends Bind { }
> 
> ---
> 
> I've got binding annotations working for :
> 
>    * Constructor Injection
>    * Setter Injection
>    * Field Injection
>    * Method Injection
> 
> ---
> 
> It has required changes to the PicoContainer interface :-


Without a closer look, but shouldn't "Class<? extends Annotation> binding" rather be "Class<? extends Bind> binding" ? End the end we handle arbitrary annotations only if they are derived from Bind ... or did I miss something?

- Jörg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email