Thanks, Stuart,

okay, that's understood. But, what *is* the error? Note, that I was binding 
PropertyFactory (an interface), but the error message indicates that 
PropertyFactoryImpl (the implementation) wasn't bound?

Jochen

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:11:48 PM UTC+1, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
>
> On 18 Dec 2013, at 08:30, Jochen Wiedmann <[email protected]<javascript:>> 
> wrote:
>
> I was able to reduce the problem down to the following:
>
>         final Module module = new Module(){
>             public void configure(Binder binder) {
>                 
> binder.bind(PropertyFactory.class).to(PropertyFactoryImpl.class).in(Scopes.SINGLETON);
>             }
>         };
>         Guice.createInjector(Stage.PRODUCTION, module); // Throws 
> exception.
>
>
> ^ with Stage.PRODUCTION any bound singletons are eagerly instantiated 
> during injector startup (ie. during Guice.createInjector)
>
>
> https://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/Bootstrap#Phase_3:_Singleton_Preloading
>
> this exposes the error early on - if you change this to Stage.DEVELOPMENT 
> you’ll only see the error when requesting the instance
>
> And here's the stack trace:
>
> com.google.inject.CreationException: Guice creation errors:
>
> 1) No implementation for 
> com.github.jochen.afw.core.props.impl.PropertyFactoryImpl was bound.
>   at 
> com.github.jochen.afw.core.props.impl.PropertyFactoryImplTest$1.configure(PropertyFactoryImplTest.java:33)
>
> 1 error
>     at 
> com.google.inject.internal.Errors.throwCreationExceptionIfErrorsExist(Errors.java:435)
>     at 
> com.google.inject.internal.InternalInjectorCreator.initializeStatically(InternalInjectorCreator.java:154)
>     at 
> com.google.inject.internal.InternalInjectorCreator.build(InternalInjectorCreator.java:106)
>     at com.google.inject.Guice.createInjector(Guice.java:95)
>     at com.google.inject.Guice.createInjector(Guice.java:83)
>     at 
> com.github.jochen.afw.core.props.impl.PropertyFactoryImplTest.testNativeGuice(PropertyFactoryImplTest.java:36)
>     at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>     at 
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>     at 
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>     at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:592)
>     at 
> org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:47)
>     at 
> org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)
>     at 
> org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:44)
>     at 
> org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:17)
>     at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:271)
>     at 
> org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:70)
>     at 
> org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)
>     at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:238)
>     at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:63)
>     at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:236)
>     at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:53)
>     at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:229)
>     at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:309)
>     at 
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:50)
>     at 
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)
>     at 
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)
>     at 
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)
>     at 
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)
>     at 
> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:51:20 PM UTC+1, scl wrote:
>>
>> could you post the configure method of your CoreModule 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/2013 12:14 PM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: 
>> > 
>> > Hi, 
>> > 
>> > in a module, I get the error message: 
>> > 
>> > com.google.inject.CreationException: Guice creation errors: 
>> > 
>> > 1) No implementation for com.foo.PropertyFactoryImpl was bound. 
>> >   at com.foo.CoreModule.configure(CoreModule.java:66) 
>> > 
>> > While that message might make perfect sense when injecting a value, it 
>> > occurs within binder.bind(Class), where I don't understand it at all. 
>> > 
>> > Any explanations? 
>> > 
>> > Thanks, 
>> > 
>> > Jochen 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> > Groups "google-guice" group. 
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>> > an email to [email protected]. 
>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 
>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice. 
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "google-guice" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"google-guice" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to