Currently using checked providers extension together with
requireExplicitBindings() call on the binder require presence of explicit
binding for the checked provider:
binder().requireExplicitBindings();
ThrowingProviderBinder.create(binder())
.bind(CustomCheckedProvider.class, CustomObject.class)
.to(DefaultCustomCheckedProvider.class);
bind(DefaultCustomCheckedProvider.class); // Without this Injector
configuration fails
However, there is no such problem with regular providers, and I can use them
without explicit bindings:
binder().requireExplicitBindings();
bind(CustomObject.class).toProvider(RegularCustomObjectProvider.class);
// no explicit binding of RegularCustomObjectProvider is required
I think that explicit binding of checked provider is redundant and should not
be required; after all, we specify that we want to use it in
ThrowingProviderBinder call.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by dpx.infinity@gmail.com on 29 Apr 2013 at 10:34
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dpx.infinity@gmail.com
on 29 Apr 2013 at 10:34