anvil VS Dagger2

In terms of of what Anvil is I'd really recommend reading the README It's a lot more flexible than Hilt and provides a code generation hook so if you have a codebase specific DI pattern you can also set that up to be auto-generated with a custom annotation if you desire.

Recently I've been looking into Anvil as an alternative to Dagger and realised that it can handily generate factories for you without kapt. That brings some exciting potential for build time improvement so I was eager to try it out. However very quickly I got stuck.

I'm currently using Dagger and Anvil for my DI needs. It's been working really well, especially around what Anvil permits in terms of multibindings defined on the type declaration rather than in a module. For example:

Confusing. I initially thought someone ported the Dagger DI framework to Python: https://dagger.dev/

I'm currently using Dagger and Anvil for my DI needs. It's been working really well, especially around what Anvil permits in terms of multibindings defined on the type declaration rather than in a module. For example:

Great job, I have been waiting for this feature/fix for a long time https://github.com/google/dagger/issues/2328

Dagger

Of course, but given that there is already https://dagger.dev/ I wonder how much of this "dirk" is derivative, and how is it better than what is already out there?

Are you trying to reinvent, or perhaps improve upon, Dagger?

i don't really consider runtime a requirement of DI, perhaps stuff like spring made that something people are used to. another example https://dagger.dev/

I’m afraid the name is already taken https://dagger.dev

I support the effort to build a platform-agnostic CI/CD pipeline solution, but I don't want it in the form of yet another platform. Rather it needs to be a protocol that any platform can tie in to. I'm especially wary since this is another VC-backed effort that will eventually need to be monetized in some shape or form.

Additionally, as someone else here has already mentioned, my mind first went to Dagger, the dependency injection tool (https://dagger.dev). That tool in particular was named as a play on DAG (directed acyclic graphs), whereas in this case I don't think it would apply since there may be instances where you'd want cycles in a pipeline.

On a whim, I clicked on "Trademark Guidelines" (https://dagger.io/trademark) and from that page alone I would recommend avoiding this based on the aggressive language used to try and claim ownership of generic words. According to their own language, it seems I'm violating their guidelines by writing this comment.

> Our Marks consist of the following registered, unregistered and/or pending trademarks, service marks and logos which are subject to change without notice: Dagger; Blocklayer; and other designs, logos or marks which may be referred to in your specific license agreement or otherwise.

> Blocklayer does not permit using any of our Marks ... to identify non-Blocklayer products, services or technology

Which would include Dagger, the dependency injection tool.

Other sections of note:

> Do Not Use As Nouns

(This one just reads amusingly to me, for some reason.)

> Do Not Create Composite Marks

This section seems to suggest that you can't use "dagger" in any shape or form, even as a smaller part of some other word or body of text.

> Websites And Domain Name Uses