Support for builder instance module methods
See original GitHub issueHi,
a lot of us are probably using Dagger modules with constructor parameters. It would be great if you could use such a construction in dagger-reflect.
DaggerXComponent.builder()
.xModule(new XModule(this))
.build();
Thanks.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:5 (4 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
The Ruby Module Builder Pattern - dejimata
At its core, the Module Builder is an extremely simple, elegant, and versatile way of dynamically defining named, customizable modules to mix ...
Read more >Configurable Ruby Modules: The Module Builder Pattern
Explore how to implement configurable modules in Ruby — a technique sometimes referred to as the Module Builder Pattern.
Read more >Can I invoke an instance method on a Ruby module without ...
To invoke a module instance method without including the module (and without creating intermediary objects): class UsefulWorker def do_work ...
Read more >Action modules supported by AWSTOE component manager
Describes the features of commonly used AWSTOE action modules, and how to ... Image Builder, use AWSTOE action modules to help configure the...
Read more >ModuleBuilder Class (System.Reflection.Emit) | Microsoft Learn
To get an instance of ModuleBuilder, use the AssemblyBuilder.DefineDynamicModule method. Constructors. ModuleBuilder(). Properties. Assembly. Gets the dynamic ...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found

They’re faster and optimize better. If you’re tempted to make stateful modules just put the state into the graph directly and use stateless modules instead.
It would be great not to support it, yes. I don’t want to duplicate the logic of Dagger for stateful module awareness and the associated builder logic.