Interesting... I'm trying to do the same thing! On Jul 27, 7:57 am, Fedor Li <[email protected]> wrote: > After searching the web for a solution to create an injector with a module > with missing bindings I didn't find any discussion about that. Is there a > way to accomplish that? What I'm trying to do is to create a child injector > later on, which uses a module that provides the missing bindings and use > that injector to create objects. Example: > > private static class DefaultModule extends AbstractModule > { > @Override > protected void configure() > { > bind(IClassA.class).to(ClassA.class); > /* > * ClassA needs an implementation for IClassB. The binding for > IClassB is not defined here. > */ > } > > } > > public final class ClassAFactory > { > private static final Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new > DefaultModule()); > /* > * Here the creation of the Injector fails, because the binding for > IClassB is missing > */ > > public static IClassA createClassA() > { > Injector functionalInjector = injector.createChildInjector(new > AbstractModule() > { > @Override > protected void configure() > { > bind(IClassB.class).to(ClassB.class); > /* > * Here I would satisfy the missing binding > */ > } > }); > > return functionalInjector.getInstance(IClassA.class); > } > > } > > Thanks for any help!
-- 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.
