Comments on: Google Guice and Multibinding

By: Mischa Dasberg

Mischa Dasberg — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:00:53 +0000

@Erik, why not? Both Spring and Guice work great, but Guice makes your code cleaner and the setup is easier and more readable.

By: Erik Jan

Erik Jan — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:33:05 +0000

Great blog, I’ve one question why would you want to migrate from spring to guice?

By: Mischa Dasberg

Mischa Dasberg — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:16:40 +0000

@niels and Iwein,

As you can see in the example I bind all Snacks with the Snack annotation. (maybe I should have called the annotation DefaultSnack)

multibinder.toAnnotatedClasses(Snack.class);
// Add a non annotated class to the bind.
multibinder.addBinding().to(Skittles.class);

And I add Skittles to my personal snackmachine which doesn’t have the annotation.
The downside of the toImplementingClasses would be that I can’t exclude any implementing class.

By: iwein

iwein — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:25:06 +0000

That’s pretty nice. I have to agree with niels though, the parametrization of the collection doesn’t stack up against the redundancy of implementing the interface and annotate. But that’s easily fixed I think.

By: Sakuraba

Sakuraba — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:29:53 +0000

I wish those were available in GIN. Could definetly use those!

By: niels

niels — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:19:41 +0000

>> @Snack
>> public class Snickers implements ISnack

I don’t know anything about Guice, but it seems rather redundant. Isn’t it possible to specify something similar to:
AdvancedMultibinder multibinder = multibind(ISnack.class);
multibinder.toImplementingClasses(ISnack.class);

or even:
AdvancedMultibinder multibinder = multibind(ISnack.class);
multibinder.bindAllImplementingClasses();

Niels

By: Jesse Wilson

Jesse Wilson — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:31:26 +0000

Neato!