Oh. I was thinking only about the read part. One more +1 for the component! :)
Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Carl-Eric Menzel < [email protected]> wrote: > How can you inject dependencies into an instance's fields without > actually having that instance? > > Carl-Eric > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:27:43 +0200 > Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > All IOC listeners (Spring, Guice, CDI) can do their job by using only > > the class. > > But I still find the instance more useful :-) > > > > Martin Grigorov > > Wicket Training and Consulting > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Carl-Eric Menzel > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Duh. I knew I missed an obvious one! You are of course right. > > > > > > So we can't get rid of that one easily. That said, I'm still wary of > > > spreading unfinished objects even further around the API. > > > > > > Carl-Eric > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:12:32 +0100 > > > Sven Meier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > SpringComponentInjector? > > > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > On 12/20/2013 10:09 AM, Carl-Eric Menzel wrote: > > > > > I agree that something should be cleaned up. But like I said in > > > > > the comment to that Jira ticket, I think it should in fact move > > > > > more toward passing the class rather than the uninitialized > > > > > instance. I like my objects to be predictable, and I like it > > > > > even more when I don't have to think about any traps, even if > > > > > they are well-documented. > > > > > > > > > > I think (I also wrote that in the comment) that perhaps > > > > > IComponentInstantiationListener should be deprecated and > > > > > eventually removed, since IComponentInitializationListener > > > > > should be able to cover all the same use cases without having > > > > > the unfinished constructor problem. > > > > > > > > > > Is there a use case that would not be handled by the > > > > > initialization listener? > > > > > > > > > > Carl-Eric > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:53:40 +0200 > > > > > Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > >> > > > > >> The reporter of > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5454 asked to > > > > >> pass the Component instance to > > > > >> IAuthorizationStrategy#isInstantiationAuthorized() instead of > > > > >> just its class. I have no idea why the API has been designed > > > > >> this way but Carl-Eric gave a good explanation - the component > > > > >> is not yet fully constructed. > > > > >> > > > > >> The thing that bothers me is why it is OK to use the instance > > > > >> in my custom IComponentInstantiationListener and it is not OK > > > > >> to do the same in > > > > >> IAuthorizationStrategy#isInstantiationAuthorized() ? If there > > > > >> is a javadoc explaining the possible problem (as for > > > > >> IComponentInstantiationListener#onInstantiation()) then it is > > > > >> OK. > > > > >> > > > > >> Even more - at > > > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/wicket/blob/master/wicket-core/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/Application.java#L276you > > > > >> can see that right ater rejecting the *Class* we pass the > > > > >> *instance* to > > > > >> the UnauthorizedComponentInstantiationListener! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Martin Grigorov > > > > >> Wicket Training and Consulting > > > > > > > > > > > >
