Problem using it with AndroidAnnotations

[gdogaru]

I tried using dagger with AndroidAnnotations within activities.
The problem is that AndroidAnnotations creates a subclass of my activity.
When you look for annotated subscribers in com.squareup.otto.AnnotatedHandlerFinder#loadAnnotatedMethods you use listenerClass.getDeclaredMethods()
This does not return the methods from the super-class. So I can not receive messages if I create a subclass of the class that contains subscribe methods.
I got around this by registering an anonymous class with an annotated method.
Not sure if you want to support this, just mentioned it.
Thanks,
Gabi

[JakeWharton]

This will come with 2.0 when class hierarchy walking is restored. This was intentionally removed for the 1.x versions.

[bensandee]

I appreciate the decision, and it's easy enough to work around with enough care.

That said, gIven how easy it is to accidentally subscribe to events in a class and then subclass it, I wonder if either of these would be useful:

• a warning could be logged (difficult, since you've kept dependencies minimal and there's no logging)
• a "strict" flag for the Bus, where an IllegalArgumentException might be thrown
  if you try to subscribe to events using a non-final class.

In my code base, this is effectively what I've tried to do to avoid accidentally losing events.

[bensandee]

So, quick experiment leads me to the fact that anonymous inner classes are non-final (I'm sure there's a good reason). Oh well.

[imminent]

@JakeWharton I seem to have an error with unregistering Subscribers using 2.0 snapshot. It's the IllegalArugmentException "Missing Subscriber...". Do you have to handle subscription differently in 2.0?

[JakeWharton]

I wasn't even aware 2.0 compiled, to be honest.

[imminent]

The clean android code project uses it because the change is necessary for
integration with AndroidAnnotations, isn't it?
On Feb 27, 2013 1:39 PM, "Jake Wharton" notifications@github.com wrote:

I wasn't even aware 2.0 compiled, to be honest.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-14201821
.

[JakeWharton]

Yes, but it's a long way from actually being a shippable version of the library. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are problems with it. I wouldn't recommend using it until we move it to the master branch to dictate that it's relatively stable and pushing toward release.

[imminent]

That's what I was afraid of. I thought I would give it a try to find out
though. Would love to have these libraries working together. I'm all for
readable, maintainable code.
On Feb 27, 2013 2:07 PM, "Jake Wharton" notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes, but it's a long way from actually being a shippable version of the
library. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are problems with it. I
wouldn't recommend using it until we move it to the master branch to
dictate that it's relatively stable and pushing toward release.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-14203331
.

[JakeWharton]

Well I'm starting actual 2.0 development today or tomorrow so it should move forward quickly. As it exists now it's more of a proof-of-concept.

[imminent]

Oh, awesome! Is there anything I can follow to see if I can contribute to
its progress. Annotation processing is a bit outside my usual domain. These
issues are for the whole repository, not just a branch, right?
On Feb 27, 2013 2:14 PM, "Jake Wharton" notifications@github.com wrote:

Well I'm starting actual 2.0 development today or tomorrow so it should
move forward quickly. As it exists now it's more of a proof-of-concept.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-14203713
.

[JakeWharton]

All issues relevant to its development will be organized on the 2.0 milestone of the project.

[JakeWharton]

I need to rebase it first, though, since the branch is about 6 months out of date.

[imminent]

Got it.
On Feb 27, 2013 2:21 PM, "Jake Wharton" notifications@github.com wrote:

I need to rebase it first, though, since the branch is about 6 months out
of date.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-14204069
.

[WonderCsabo]

@JakeWharton what is the status of the 2.0 branch? Did you reject to continue development in that way?