-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SetterInjection has hard-coded constructor name #43
Comments
dakkar
added a commit
to dakkar/BreadBoard
that referenced
this issue
Mar 31, 2015
dakkar
added a commit
to dakkar/BreadBoard
that referenced
this issue
Mar 31, 2015
Looks sensible to me, however I don't think anyone ever used SetterInjection. It is more annoying then it is worth and BlockInjection is a far more readable/understandable way to accomplish the same thing and have your actual intent be clearer. |
Merged in. Thanks! :-) |
yanick
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 28, 2016
- Add test messages to tests which did not have them, (#50, Alex Balhatchet) [ DOCUMENTATION ] - add missing module abstracts. (GH#49, Alex Balhatchet, GH#16, Sterling Hanenkamp) [ ENHANCEMENTS ] - SetterInjection can now accept any constructor. (#43, dakkar) [ STATISTICS ] - code churn: 37 files changed, 462 insertions(+), 395 deletions(-)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
ConstructorInjection
uses the MOP (plus override) to find the constructor to call, butSetterInjection
always callsnew
. Should I factor out theconstructor_name
attribute and use it in both injections?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: