mine or the other guys? Here is mine...
I have EJB like @Entity tags in a NoSQL platform....the tags for now
are @NoSqlEntity as we are using hibernate too, so you can imaging
many beans being annotated with @NoSQLEntity. Now, since this is
noSQL, we have a grid of nodes and while triggers were bad in RDBMS,
they seem to be wonderful in noSQL environments sooooo every class
that we have a trigger to, we add a special annotation
@TriggerImpl(TriggerForAccount.class)
private class Account {
}
Then, in my platform, when scanning entities, I find these
triggers...let's pretend we have 20 triggers for now(but more get
added as developers program and we automatically invoke them as a
platform sooooo when a a trigger goes off, we get the ClassMetaData
object(just like hibernate since we stored all that on startup and
scanning for annotations). From the ClassMetaData, we have a Class<?
extends Trigger> myTrigger variable and that is what we feed into the
provider so that we generate 20 different types of triggers in the
noSQL data grid.
make sense? I am not sure it is the best way, but I am happy that I
have gotten through it and have something working. I would love to
make it better if you have ideas. In particular, I didn't like having
to give it the injector, but it seems to work.
I did see another similar blog here on similar subject....(solved a
different way by changing Guice code which I was trying to avoid)....
http://eng.wealthfront.com/2010/05/just-in-time-providers-for-guice.html
later,
Dean
On Feb 18, 1:38 pm, Bob Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't understand your problem well enough. This doesn't sound like an
> advisable approach though. Can you explain the problem at a higher level?
>
> Bob
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM, deanhiller <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > In my Class, the client has this code
>
> > well, you can get rid of the "static"s I realized later. and then the
> > client does this to ask for the one it needs...
>
> > @Inject
> > private ListenerProvider listenerProvider;
>
> > and the client code then is...
>
> > listenerProvider.setType(classFromSomeAnnotation);
> > OurCacheListener listener = listenerProvider.get(); //returns an
> > object of type classFromSomeAnnotation
>
> > later,
> > Dean
>
> > On Feb 18, 11:39 am, Bob Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:07 AM, deanhiller <[email protected]
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Last night, I tried doing creating a CustomProvider BUT then Guice is
> > > > not injecting my CustomProvider with fields that have @Inject in my
> > > > objects that get created(I was hoping Guice intercepted them and
> > > > created them on-demand). Is there a way to make this work....
>
> > > How do you choose which implementation to ask for? I'd probably use a
> > > binding annotation instead of setting a thread local.
>
> > > To make your code work:
>
> > > public class ListenerProvider implements Provider<OurCacheListener> {
>
> > > private static ThreadLocal<Class<?>> clazzThreadLocal =
> > > new ThreadLocal<Class<?>>();
>
> > > @Inject private Injector injector;
>
> > > @Override
> > > public OurCacheListener get() {
> > > * return (OurCacheListener)
> > > injector.getInstance(clazzThreadLocal.get());*
> > > }
>
> > > public static void setType(Class<?> clazz2) {
> > > clazzThreadLocal.set(clazz2);
> > > }
>
> > > }
>
> > --
> > 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.
--
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.
