I have almost the same question than Kevin I'm using this for my retrofit instance ``` bind<MySer...

# kodein

[Joan Colmenero]

I have almost the same question than Kevin I'm using this for my retrofit instance

bind<MyService>() with singleton {
        instance<Retrofit>().create(MyService::class.java)
    }

and now I'm wondering if there's a way to avoid doing this

bind<LogniService>() with singleton {
        instance<Retrofit>().create(LoginService::class.java)
    }
bind<AuthenticationService>() with singleton {
        instance<Retrofit>().create(AuthenticationService::class.java)
    }
bind<DetailService>() with singleton {
        instance<Retrofit>().create(DetailService::class.java)
    }
---

[streetsofboston]

i don’t see why it is bad practice.
You could also create a multiton (instead of a singleton) binding, if the same Retrofit instance is used for all of them. Use a KClass<T> as the multiton’s parameter.

[Joan Colmenero]

can you post a sample?

[streetsofboston]

First, have all your retrofit-service interfaces extend a super-interface. e.g.

interface RetrofitService // Just an empty marker-interface
....
interface LoginService : RetrofitService { ... }
...
interface AuthenticationService: RetrofitService { ... }
... etc ...

Then define this sub-types binding for your Kodein dependency graph:

...
    bind<RetrofitService>().subTypes() with { type ->
        singleton {
            instance<Retrofit>().create(type.jvmType as Class<RetrofitService>)            
        }
    }
...

And getting/obtaining the correct dependency instance, it is just done the regular way:

...
    private val loginService: LoginService by kodein.instance()
    ...

[Joan Colmenero]

Cool let me try it 🙂