Alternatively you can put @ProvidedBy annotation on the MyClass like
@ProvidedBy (FooProvider.class)
public class Foo{}
injecting both Foo and Provider<Foo> will work as expected;-)
Cheers,
Alen
On 20 okt., 16:58, "Andrew Clegg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aah! I didn't realise you could do that. I thought providers just
> worked like this:
>
> // module
> bind( MyClass.class ).toProvider( MyClassProvider.class );
>
> // logic
> @Inject MyClass myClass; // Guice calls MyClassProvider#get() here
> behind the scenes
>
> I hadn't worked out that you can bind *to* a provider and then inject
> the Provider interface instead of the class it provides.
>
> Thanks, I'll give it a go that way.
>
> Andrew.
>
> 2008/10/20 Alen Vrečko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
