mthmulders
commented
1 year ago I've heard about Dagger before, ActiveJ Inject is new to me.
As far as I can see, Dagger 2.45 seems to be more widely used than ActiveJ Inject.
Given that I prefer to distribute MCS as a native executable, I think it's important that either option plays well with GraalVM's native executable building. Ideally, I'd like to see a reflectionless approach, as I believe it will work faster.
- Judging from this blog, Dagger 2 should work out-of-the-box in a native executable - because it completely works at compile time.
- From the ActiveJ Inject docs, it seems it needs some reflection configuration before it can be used in a native executable.
It's not even close to a thorough comparison, but from these two parameters, I'm tempted to give Dagger 2 the benefit of the doubt. What do you think?
hannotify
When supporting the "Copy to clipboard" behaviour with a command-line option (in #184), I discovered that there is currently no easy way to make the value of such an option available at an arbitrary code location. This results in passing a parameter value through multiple layers of interfaces and classes, which is inflexible to say the least.
What if we would introduce a light-weight DI framework (like Dagger or ActiveJ Inject), so that more features can be built that are controlled by a command-line option in a more elegant way?