Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Looks like issue #70
Original comment by robbie.v...@gmail.com
on 9 Jul 2007 at 7:09
It's exactly the same as 70. If you apply the patch, you will see one possible
solution. Are you planing to support this feature request in general?
Regadrs Daniel
Original comment by wie...@gmail.com
on 9 Jul 2007 at 8:17
I'm not the one to make the final call, but it's my understanding that Guice is
intentionally not supporting arbitrary annotations, because it is less likely to
cause confusion if there is one annotation with a clear meaning. If there is
some
reason you can't annotate your code's injection points with @Inject, I think
you will
need to make a clear case for it.
Original comment by bslesinsky
on 9 Jul 2007 at 11:53
The use case would be to use Guice as a DI tool to support EJB3 style
annotations.
You could write a EJB3 conform application without having a application server.
Using Guice for the Session bean layer and e.g. Hibernate for the persistence
layer
Daniel
Original comment by wie...@gmail.com
on 10 Jul 2007 at 1:15
If you want to write an application that works with both EJB and Guice, it
seems like
you could do it by using both kinds of annotations? Each container will ignore
the
other's annotations, and they probably have subtly different semantics anyway.
Original comment by bslesinsky
on 12 Jul 2007 at 4:06
This was discussed earlier about @Resource too. I think the decision was that
Provider interceptors will solve the problem elegantly by allowing you to
define your
own semantics prior to "delivery" of the injection.
Original comment by dha...@gmail.com
on 1 Sep 2007 at 12:16
Duplicate of issue 70. EJB-specific features could be implemented as
construction-interceptors (issue 203).
Original comment by limpbizkit
on 5 Jun 2008 at 7:48
Original comment by limpbizkit
on 9 Jun 2008 at 6:37
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
wie...@gmail.com
on 9 Jul 2007 at 1:06Attachments: