Hey <@UCQSRLA2J> - nah. It's a proper "high end" optimisation even for those Java users. I looked it...

# dagger

[David]

Hey @Sam - nah. It's a proper "high end" optimisation even for those Java users. I looked it up a while back and end up just doing the older style for my Kotlin modules and moved on. Be good to know if I was wrong on this point though? I think our time would be better spent turning things lazy if they need be and obvs not doing anything slow in the provisioning blocks.

[David]

Although looking back at my code I did use a companion object 🤔
...I also remember thinking that this must be redundant!

[Sam]

I tried few things, companion objects with @JvmStatic does help

[Sam]

Dagger generated code being in Java is using the static version (generated by Kotlin compiler)

[Sam]

and the DaggerAppComponent never creates an instance of the AppModule

[Sam]

It wouldn't make sense if Dagger generated code is going to be in kotlin

[Sam]

so far being in Java, seems to be fine

[David]

Ah nice! So if you are 💯 Kotlin then no effect but if you have Java then it remains valid?

[David]

@Module
open class SyncModule {

    @Module
    companion object {
        /**
         * Provide access to the notification manager.
         *
         * @return the notification manager.
         */
        @Provides
        @JvmStatic fun providesNotificationManager(context: Context): NotificationManager {
            return context.getSystemService(Context.NOTIFICATION_SERVICE) as NotificationManager
        }
...

..snippet from one of my Kotlin modules

[Sam]

even if you are in Kotlin it will be fine as long as Dagger generated code is in Java

[Sam]

In your case, look at the generated code of the component using the SyncModule

[Sam]

it will be java based and will invoke providesNotificationManager as a static method on SyncModule

[David]

I see. Will do after I've made dinner - post back your findings in the main channel!

[Sam]

make sure to declare your SyncModule as abstract

[Sam]

there is really no reason to create an instance of it

[Sam]

and hence the optimization

[David]

Ah so that code wouldn't of had a chance either way. Facepalm. 😅

[David]

Thanks for the tip!

[Sam]

Sure