Indeed, that would be better.
Meanwhile, I'll just inject services into an interface like Ron suggested.
Hadn't thought of that before.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:38:26 +0100, Norbert Sándor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I won't like this. @InjectObject is for injecting objects, so it
shouldn't default to injecting a service...
BUT :)
What about a new InjectService annotation:
@InjectService
public abstract MyService getMyService();
would be equivalent to
(MyService)registry.getService(MyService.class)
and
@InjectService("mymodule.MyService")
public abstract MyService getMyService();
would be equivalent to
(MyService)registry.getService("mymodule.MyService", MyService.class)
I hope that I haven't reinvent the wheel :)))
BR,
Norbi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Strand"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: InjectObject
Just a thought, wouldn't it be nice if InjectObject by default injected
the service with an id equal to the return type's fully qualified name?
@InjectObject
public abstract MyService getMyService();
would be the same as
@InjectObject("service:my.package.MyService")
public abstract MyService getMyService();
At least for me the type's name is equal to the service id about 99% of
the time. What do you think?.
--Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.16/225 - Release Date: 2006.
01. 09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
