I had got it working with I guess it's the 2.0 way of doing
things...with this style binding:
bind(IMyClassFactory.class).toProvider(
FactoryProvider.newFactory(IMyClassFactory.class,
MyClass.class));
but FactoryProvider is deprecated.
So now that I see your post saying that I need to used 'named'
annotations I changed it to use this approach.
install(new FactoryModuleBuilder()
.implement(IMyClass.class, MyClass.class)
.build(IMyClassFactory.class));
however with this approach I have to used named Assisted annotations
in MyClass and I have to add named Assisted annotations to
IMyClassFactory where none was needed with the 2.0 approach. (Seems
like order of parameters could be used.)
Both seem to work but the 2.0 approach as less intrusive to the code
(interfaces). ...just my two-cents.
Thanks much!
-Dave
On Apr 12, 3:08 pm, Fred Faber <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:28 AM, dhoffer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yeah, that's what I was missing. This should do exactly what I need
> > but I can't get it to work yet. It compiles but at runtime it fails.
> > I find the documentation on this feature too sparse. Instead of
> > giving one full example they jump between two separate partial
> > examples.
>
> > In particular the docs don't make clear which module it is referring
> > to. In my case the class to be dynamically created has no non-
> > assisted parameters. I.e. the constructor of that class has 5
> > parameters and they all have the @Assisted annotation.
>
> > So then question 1 is...should this class have the @Inject annotation
> > or the @AssistededInject annotation?
>
> It should use @Inject....@AssistedInject was used in the initial version of
> the library, which uses reflection and not a child injector to create the
> factory-created objects.
>
> > The docs aren't real clear on
> > this, I think the later is needed only if I have overloaded
> > constructors which I do not. Question 2 is...do I even need a module
> > for this class? Since it has no injected parameters it seems it has
> > nothing to do.
>
> You'll need to bind the Factory as you show below (I'm unclear what "class"
> you mean in this question). You won't bind the class being created by the
> factory, if that's the question.
>
>
>
> > Now for the class(s) that need to inject the factory interface I
> > assume these are the modules that need this:
> > install(new FactoryModuleBuilder()
> > .implement(IMyClass.class, MyClass.class)
> > .build(IMyClassFactory.class));
>
> > And this would be positioned in the module to line up with the
> > IMyClassFactory injected parameter (which in my case is after the bind
> > methods).
>
> Ok.
>
>
>
>
>
> > However at runtime I get this error:
>
> > com.google.inject.CreationException: Guice creation errors:
>
> > 1) A binding to com.app.MyParam annotated with
> > @com.google.inject.assistedinject.Assisted(value=) was already
> > configured at com.app.IMyClassFactory.create().
> > at com.app.IMyClassFactory.create(IMyClassFactory.java:1)
> > at
>
> > com.google.inject.assistedinject.FactoryProvider2.initialize(FactoryProvider2.java:
> > 539)
> > at com.google.inject.assistedinject.FactoryModuleBuilder
> > $1.configure(FactoryModuleBuilder.java:335)
>
> > Where MyParam is one of the 5 parameters in the IMyClassFactory create
> > method (i.e. MyClass constructor).
>
> I am guessing that more than one parameter has type "MyParam."
>
> If this is the case, then you need to distinguish param of the same type by
> "naming" them, e.g.,
>
> @Inject ClassCreatedByFactory(
> @Assisted("usedAsUsername") String username,
> @Assisted("usedAsPassword") String password) { ... }
>
>
>
> > Any idea what is wrong? Is there a full example of this someplace?
>
> Generally there are some examples in the test classes, such as here:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/source/browse/trunk/extensions/...
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> > -Dave
>
> > On Apr 11, 6:17 pm, Sam Berlin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Take a look at the AssistedInject extension @
> >http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/AssistedInject.
>
> > > sam
>
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:07 AM, David Hoffer <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > > Nope, my factories are as plain as they get, i.e.
>
> > > > public class MyClassFactory implements IMyClassFactory {
>
> > > > public MyClass createMyClass(String param1, String param2, String
> > > > param3, int param4, double param5) {
> > > > return new MyClass(param1, param2, param3, param4, param5);
> > > > }
> > > > }
>
> > > > The whole purpose of this factory is so I can inject IMyClassFactory
> > into
> > > > other classes that need to 'new' MyClass so that class is mock
> > testable.
>
> > > > I'd love to use Guice so I don't need to write these factories but how
> > do I
> > > > pass param1, param2, param3, param4 & param5 into MyClass's
> > constructor?
>
> > > > -Dave
>
> > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Fred Faber <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >> This is similar to a question from earlier this week...
>
> > > >> Guice will help you remove invocations of "new" on service objects.
>
> > > >> It won't be a replacement for your domain-level factory objects i.e.,
> > > >> objects that do more work on an object than simply instantiate it.
>
> > > >> Such a factory might look like:
>
> > > >> class YourFactory {
> > > >> private final Provider<Foo> fooProvider;
>
> > > >> @Inject YourFactory(Provider<Foo> fooProvider) {
> > > >> ...
> > > >> }
>
> > > >> Foo createFoo(ArgType1 arg1, ArgType2 arg2, ...) {
> > > >> Foo foo = fooProvider.get();
> > > >> ... manipulate foo, probably using the args given above
> > > >> }
> > > >> }
>
> > > >> Note that AssistedInject can remove the boilerplate if all the factory
> > is
> > > >> doing is to use the argument it gets as constructor arguments to the
> > thing
> > > >> it is creating. But it sounds like your requirements are more
> > in-depth in
> > > >> that the Factory seems to be doing more work than simply instantiating
> > an
> > > >> object.
>
> > > >> Fred
>
> > > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:45 AM, dhoffer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >>> I'm taking a look at Guice to see how it would work for us, currently
> > > >>> we code the IoC manually (giant main that wires everything up) and
> > use
> > > >>> factories to create dynamic objects so all methods are mock testable,
> > > >>> i.e. no 'new' in the code (just in the main and factories).
>
> > > >>> I get how Guice solves the IoC part with @Inject & modules, however
> > > >>> how does it help with the factories that generate dynamic objects?
> > > >>> I.e. a method that calculates values, creates an object with those
> > > >>> values, and does some work on and/or returns the object. How does
> > > >>> Guice stop us from needing to write the class factory that generates
> > > >>> the object? It looks like I could inject a typed Provider but that
> > > >>> doesn't let me create the object with the values just created
> > > >>> dynamically. (Also it would tie my code to the Guice APIs.)
>
> > > >>> So it seems Guice solves the static part of the app but not the
> > > >>> dynamic part or am I missing something?
>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> 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.
>
> > --
> > 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.
