Hi Henning, Any update about the code review for this proposal?
- Henry On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > with the release of Guice 2.0 (and our adoption), the need for "soft > bindings" of Interfaces that can be easily overridden has somewhat > diminished. But our current usage of @ImplementedBy introduces some > friction when you try to integrate Shindig into an environment where > lots of the existing interfaces need to be overridden. Mostly because > a missing explicit binding will not result in an instant startup error > but in a default implementation being bound instead of the customized > class. > > In my case, I hook CacheProvider into our internal caching > infrastructure using a custom implementation. However, the code broken > in one place for hard to track down reasons until I figured out that > this specific piece was missing the custom Guice binding and fell back > to LruCacheProvider which did not do what I expected it to do. > > In our custom Shindig tree, I now have a set of patches that remove > all @ImplementedBy annotations and replaces them with explicit > bindings in Guice modules. How controversial would be applying this > patch? Apache JIRA seems to be down right now, so I can't file a JIRA > right away. > > -h >
