To sum up: ``` module { single { Simple.Component1() } bind Simple.ComponentInterface1::class ...

# koin

[arnaud.giuliani]

To sum up:

module {
    single { Simple.Component1() } bind Simple.ComponentInterface1::class
    single { Simple.Component2() } bind Simple.ComponentInterface1::class
    single { Simple.UserComponent(bind<Simple.Component1, Simple.ComponentInterface1>()) }
}

- you can get directly the instances with get<Simple.Component1>(), get<Simple.Component2>()
- get<Simple.ComponentInterface1>() will throw an error and tell you to use bind because can’t choose between the 2 definitions
- you can use bind<>() to resolve a component in the DSL
- getAll<Simple.ComponentInterface1>() give us the 2 instances

[sloydev]

So you can val instance: Simple.ComponentInterface1 = bind<Simple.Component1, Simple.ComponentInterface1>() , is that right?

[arnaud.giuliani]

yes

[sloydev]

Cool, wasn't sure if I got it right

[sloydev]

Then is there any difference between that and val instance: Simple.ComponentInterface1 = get<Simple.Component1>() ? Or just different API?

[arnaud.giuliani]

in that case will be the same

[kenkyee]

Sounds good..not sure you need getAll() but doesn't hurt

[arnaud.giuliani]

getAll can be interesting to scan definitions tagged with the same type

[arnaud.giuliani]

if you have several definition of Feature or Plugin for example

[arnaud.giuliani]

can help to write dynamic behaviour

[kenkyee]

good point 🙂