Support the wirering of closures instead classes?

Open
#118 7 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
25/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Needs clarification
Activity status
Stale
Tech stack
scala
Domain
tooling

Research direction

No file, test, or entry point is named. Start by reviewing MacWire's compile-time dependency-injection scope and how it currently wires classes, then determine whether closure binding has a defined interface and implementation path; done would require an agreed design and corresponding coverage.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

I'm not sure if this fits into the project's scope and if it's generally possible:

Instead of wiring classes, I like to wire/bind closures. This offers to provide the interface design within the constructor or even plain functions, without the knowledge of the implementation.

It is very lightweight.

Dominant language
Scala
Stars
1.3k
Forks
77
Avg merge
9m
Merged PRs (30d)
4

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from softwaremill/macwire

All issues in softwaremill/macwire

Similar issues

More Scala issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.