Move DI to dagger 2

[Serchinastico]

We should move the current DI system to dagger 2

[thomasdsouza]

+1

[kenyee]

+1

[Dulanjala007]

+1

[trungie]

Any update when this could possible drop?

[Serchinastico]

I think we are not planning to implement this in the near future (@pedrovgs ? @flipper83 ?), but I guess PRs are more than welcome.

[pedrovgs]

I'm not really sure if we should migrate to dagger 2. The API is more and less the same, the performance is better but the usage is not as good as it should. The usage of dagger 1 is much more flexible :S. What do you think @flipper83 ?

[flipper83]

I was writing when @Serchinastico wrote :P !

We need to review if have sense migrate dagger 2, the only reason to migrate to dagger 2 is square can deprecate dagger 1.

My considerations for not migrate right now are:

1. Dagger 2 does not allow override modules, this can to give us problems to migrate current code, and I don't like alternives for fix it.

2. We need to find a solution for hide activities and fragments injections, dagger 2 is more descriptive and restrictive with graph description, and the solutions that we tested for migrate it are really heavies and uglies. When we will find a solution to hide dagger 2 definition, like are right now in Rosie, we will think in migate it.

Not for now, but possible in mid term.

Does not exist any consideration that dagger 2 are better than dagger 1 for this project. Performance is not a bottle neck. The only reason could be obfuscate the code.

[thomasdsouza]

Dagger1 is not compatible with Proguard (as flipper83 has mentioned!)

[Aexyn]

+1