Current behavior: when target type is generic, we use plain old inner binding classes.
We should move to lambda expressions.
Two cases must be handled:
- raw type; binding to a
private Map field; for example
- anonymous constrained type; binding to a
private Map<? extends K, V> or private Map<K, ? extends K> field or private Map<? extends K, ? extends V> field
- anonymous unconstrained type; binding to a
private Map<?, V> or private Map<K, ?> field or private Map<?, ?> field
For raw type, we need to build a custom TypeRawBindingPath<R, P, T> extends AbstractBinding<R, P, T, Type> as a binding base class.
Not sure if constrained and unconstrained types are really different cases.
Current behavior: when target type is generic, we use plain old inner binding classes.
We should move to lambda expressions.
Two cases must be handled:
private Map field;for exampleprivate Map<? extends K, V>orprivate Map<K, ? extends K> fieldorprivate Map<? extends K, ? extends V> fieldprivate Map<?, V>orprivate Map<K, ?> fieldorprivate Map<?, ?> fieldFor raw type, we need to build a custom TypeRawBindingPath<R, P, T> extends AbstractBinding<R, P, T, Type> as a binding base class.
Not sure if constrained and unconstrained types are really different cases.