I don't get it:)
//in config
bind(DispatchHandler.class).toProvider(SoapDispatchHandlerProvider.class);
//in your logic class
public class Foo{
@Inject
Provider<DispatchHandler> myProvider;
public void bar(SomeObject... oes){
for( SomeObject o : oes)
{
DispatchHandler h = myProvider.get();
// Send o to h ...
}
}
is this not what you want?
Cheers,
Alen
On 20 okt., 14:31, "Andrew Clegg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I needed to inject the provider so I can do things like...
>
> for( SomeObject o : anArray )
> {
> DispatchHandler h = myProvider.get();
> // Send o to h ...
>
> }
>
> I don't think there's currently a better way to do this is there?
>
> Andrew.
>
> 2008/10/20 Alen Vrečko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > I don't think you shuld be conserning yourself with binding provider
> > directly.
>
> > bind(DispatchHandler.class).toProvider(SoapDispatchHandlerProvider.class);
>
> > now if you do
>
> > @Inject
> > Provider<DispatchHandler> handler;
>
> > Guice will use SoapDispatchHandlerProvider. Hope it helps.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Alen
>
> > On 20 okt., 13:04, "Andrew Clegg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Morning folks,
>
> >> I have a custom provider for creating SoapDispatchHandler objects,
> >> which implement an interface called DispatchHandler.
>
> >> I want to set up a binding in my module such that any reference to
> >> Provider<DispatchHandler> is injected with an instance of
> >> SoapDispatchHandlerProvider, the provider class which builds and
> >> returns SoapDispatchHandler objects. (Needless to say,
> >> SoapDispatchHandlerProvider implements Provider<DispatchHandler>.)
>
> >> I originally did it like this:
>
> >> bind( new TypeLiteral<Provider<DispatchHandler>>(){} )
> >> .to( SoapDispatchHandlerProvider.class );
>
> >> but this gives me an error:
>
> >> Binding to core guice framework type is not allowed: Provider.
>
> >> So to work around it I created an empty interface like so:
>
> >> public interface DispatchHandlerProvider extends Provider<DispatchHandler>
> >> {}
>
> >> and then made SoapDispatchHandlerProvider implement
> >> DispatchHandlerProvider instead of directly implementing
> >> Provider<DispatchHandler>. This works; I can go:
>
> >> bind( DispatchHandlerProvider.class ).to(
> >> SoapDispatchHandlerProvider.class );
>
> >> without any problems. But I can't help feeling empty interfaces smell
> >> a bit funny. Is this the right way to approach this scenario?
>
> >> Thanks!
>
> >> Andrew.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"google-guice" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
