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

>
> It has required changes to the PicoContainer interface :-
>
> <pastedGraphic.tiff>

can y'all see tiffs ?

>
> Clearly there is some ugliness there - getComponentAdapter(s) has  
> two two-arg varients that in many of the test cases I've had to  
> please the compiler by casting null to ParameterName.
>
> it might be better to have a single signature for each -
>
>      <T> ComponentAdapter<T> getComponentAdapter(Class<T>  
> componentType, Object... bindingHint);
>
> - where binding hint could be a) missing, b) a ParameterName  
> instance or c) a binding annotation.  Unfortunately there's no  
> abstraction that can fit both and an Object varargs is hardly elegant.
>
> Alternate ideas -
>
>      <T> ComponentAdapter<T> getComponentAdapterWithBinding 
> (Class<T> componentType, Class<? extends Annotation> binding);
>      <T> T getComponentWithBinding(Class<T> componentType, Class<?  
> extends Annotation> binding);
>
>      <T> ComponentAdapter<T> getComponentAdapter(Key<T> key);
>      <T> T getComponent(Key<T> key);
>
>           - Key could be a wrapper for Class on its own, or Class &  
> binding annotation together.
>
> Or even a more fluent style - (usage example) -
>
>      Apple appleOne = mpc.forBoundAnnotation 
> (BindOne.class).getComponentAdapter(Apple.class);
>
> Which hints at a more fluent addComponent() styles -
>
>      mpc.addComponent(Apple.class, AppleImpl1.class).withBindingTo 
> (BindOne.class);
>
>      mpc.forBindingTo(BindOne.class).addComponent(Apple.class,  
> AppleImpl1.class);
>
>

All of these are particularly screaming for thought and comment  
(while I sleep)

- Paul

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

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email