There are different possibilities under discussion. The main problem is that
we are moving more towards up-front validation and static analysis, so the more
that can be swapped-in over a default, the trickier some of that gets.
On Friday, September 7, 2012 at 10:44 AM, robertdup wrote:
> @scl
> I've still not practices with Custom Injection. I will take a look !
>
> @Stuart McCulloch
> This way looks good;even if it's a pity to lose Guice AOP =)
>
> @Fred Faber & @Russ
> I think that I will use this solution...
>
> Thanks you for all your proposition; I appreciate !
> Someday, perhaps, Guice will implement a functionnality to do it more easily
> =)
>
> On Friday, September 7, 2012 4:34:34 PM UTC+2, Russ wrote:
> > I've done the same thing in my project, taking it a step further: I've
> > hidden the annotation implementation in an InvocationHandler and written a
> > simple factory that takes the annotation class and enum value and creates a
> > dynamic proxy for the annotation desired:
> >
> > public final class AnnotationFactory {
> >
> > public static <A extends Annotation,
> > E extends Enum<E>> A create(final Class<A> annoClass,
> > final E theEnum) {
> > // Details omitted for brevity
> > }
> > }
> >
> > An AnnotationInvocationHandler class (not shown) implements the details of
> > the annotation specification. You wouldn't then be forced to re-implement
> > the annotation implementation for each new annotation class you create,
> > just create them programatically using the factory.
> >
> > Your code could then look like this:
> >
> > private void bindFoo(Class<? extends Foo> fooClass,
> > WhatKindOfStuff whatKindOfStuff) {
> > bind(Foo.class)
> > .annotatedWith(AnnotationFactory.create(DoesFooStuff.class,
> > whatKindOfStuff))
> > .to(fooClass);
> > }
> >
> > This makes DoesFooStuffImpl class unnecessary.
> >
> > -Russ
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Fred Faber <[email protected]
> > (javascript:)> wrote:
> > > Noticed the typos now. I started by naming "DoesFooStuff" naming as
> > > "FooClient", so please disregard those references.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Fred Faber <[email protected]
> > > (javascript:)> wrote:
> > > > A pattern to mitigate the boilerplate is to use a parameterized
> > > > annotation:
> > > >
> > > > @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @BindingAnnotation public
> > > > @interface DoesFooStuff { DoesFooStuff value();
> > > > enum WhatKindOfStuff {
> > > > STUFF_THAT_A_WANTS,
> > > > STUFF_THAT_B_WANTS,
> > > > ...
> > > > STUFF_THAT_Z_WANTS
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > You would then use this to annotate your Foos:
> > > >
> > > > class AFoo {
> > > > @Inject AFoo(@DoesStuffForFoo(Foo.WhatKindOfStuff.STUFF_THAT_A_WANTS)
> > > > IFoo foo) {
> > > > ...
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > In your module you'd define an implementation of the interface (which
> > > > is tricky...you need to be careful to follow the spec on the Annotation
> > > > javadoc):
> > > > @SuppressWarnings("ClassExplicitlyAnnotation") private static class
> > > > DoesFooStuffImpl implements DoesStuffForFoo {
> > > > private final WhatKindOfStuff value;
> > > > private DoesFooStuffImpl(WhatKindOfStuff value) {
> > > > this.value = value; } @Override WhatKindOfStuff String value() {
> > > > return value; } @Override public Class<? extends Annotation>
> > > > annotationType() { return DoesStuffForFoo.class;
> > > > } @Override public String toString() { return "@" +
> > > > DoesStuffForFoo.class.getName() + "(value=" + value + ")";
> > > > } @Override public boolean equals(Object o) { return o instanceof
> > > > DoesStuffForFooImpl
> > > > && ((DoesStuffForFoo) o).value().equals(value());
> > > > } @Override public int hashCode() { return (127 * "value".hashCode()) ^
> > > > value.hashCode(); } }
> > > >
> > > > You could then define a helper method as syntatic sugar over the
> > > > binding:
> > > >
> > > > private void bindFoo(Class<? extends Foo> fooClass, WhatKindOfStuff
> > > > whatKindOfStuff {
> > > > bind(Foo.class)
> > > > .annotatedWith(new DoesFooStuffImpl(whatKindOfStuff))
> > > > .to(fooClass);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > And then your bindings become:
> > > >
> > > > @Override protected void configure() {
> > > > bindFoo(FooThatAFooWants.class, WhatKindOfStuff.STUFF_THAT_A_WANTS);
> > > > bindFoo(FooThatBFooWants.class, WhatKindOfStuff.STUFF_THAT_B_WANTS);
> > > > ...
> > > > bindFoo(FooThatZFooWants.class, WhatKindOfStuff.STUFF_THAT_Z_WANTS);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:02 AM, robertdup <[email protected]
> > > > (javascript:)> wrote:
> > > > > Yes it's right.. but this way don't satisfy me totally cause I have
> > > > > some XFoo classes.
> > > > > I will have to create many annotation (@A,@B, ..., @Z), and I must
> > > > > bind all of them or I will get a guice exception.
> > > > >
> > > > > bind(IFoo.class).annotatedWith.(A.class).to(DefaultFoo.class);
> > > > > bind(IFoo.class).annotatedWith.(B.class).to(DefaultFoo.class);
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > bind(IFoo.class).annotatedWith.(Y.class).to(DefaultFoo.class);
> > > > > bind(IFoo.class).annotatedWith.(Z.class).to(DefaultFoo.class);
> > > > >
> > > > > In my case, I just have to override a couple of binding and let the
> > > > > other on the default implementation (DefaultFoo.class)
> > > > > bind(IFoo.class).annotatedWith.(E.class).to(MyEFoo.class);
> > > > > bind(IFoo.class).annotatedWith.(K.class).to(MyKFoo.class);
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise, PrivateModule looks too "heavy" to implement in my case..
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, Is there an other way that could be less verbose ?
> > > > > Best regards;
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Friday, September 7, 2012 3:59:12 AM UTC+2, Fred Faber wrote:
> > > > > > Strictly speaking, the robot legs problem describes a scenario
> > > > > > where the types of your object chain are identical. In your case,
> > > > > > you wouldn't have AFoo and BFoo, but just Foo. It's a luxury of
> > > > > > sorts to have AFoo and BFoo because you _can_ use a binding
> > > > > > annotation on the constructor of each. That is the solution I
> > > > > > would prefer for its clarity in how AFoo and BFoo are being
> > > > > > configured:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > class AFoo {
> > > > > > @Inject AFoo(@DoesStuffRelatedToA IFoo ifoo) { ... }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > class BFoo {
> > > > > > @Inject BFoo(@DoesStuffRelatedToB IFoo ifoo) { ... }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here, grepping through the code directly for DoesStuffRelatedToA
> > > > > > would lead me to the binding for IFoo in context of AFoo, and
> > > > > > that's a little bit of a win for code maintenance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM, robertdup <[email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks for your reply.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you know if it's a common uses to have more than 20 privates
> > > > > > > modules ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thursday, September 6, 2012 4:00:35 PM UTC+2, Thomas Broyer
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > This is known as the "robot legs" problem, see
> > > > > > > > http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#How_do_I_build_two_similar_but_slightly_different_trees_of_objec
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 6, 2012 9:14:24 AM UTC+2, robertdup
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hello there,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I trying to implement default binding on my module without
> > > > > > > > > any success...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here is what I would like to do (my dream) :
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > class AFoo
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > @Inject AFoo( IFoo foo ){}
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > class BFoo
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > @Inject BFoo( IFoo foo ){}
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > bind(IFoo.class).to(DefaultFoo.class);
> > > > > > > > > > bind(IFoo.class).to(OtherFoo.class).on(BFoo.class);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I know that I could solve this problem using annotation like
> > > > > > > > > this :
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > class AFoo
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > @Inject AFoo( @A IFoo foo ){}
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > class BFoo
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > @Inject BFoo( @B IFoo foo ){}
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > bind(IFoo.class).annotatedWith(A.class).to(DefaultFoo.class);
> > > > > > > > > > bind(IFoo.class).annotatedWith(B.class).to(OtherFoo.class);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But this way is too boring and dirty.. (because I have to add
> > > > > > > > > annotation/binding definition for each one)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are there some others ways to solve Default binding "problem"
> > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance; Best regards
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> > > > > > > Google Groups "google-guice" group.
> > > > > > > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-guice/-/bqRh1CKDwsEJ.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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]
> > > (javascript:).
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > [email protected] (javascript:).
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "google-guice" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-guice/-/1JhF9-nY1McJ.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> (mailto:[email protected]).
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
> (mailto:[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.
