I see two ways to achieve the same using no static factory methods.
1.
As Ben already suggested, create a provider. You can even call a
static factory method from the provider.
Or you can inline the static factory method if it is only called
from the provider. But be aware that an instance created with a
custom provider will not support method interception using guices
interceptors.
public class FooProvider<Foo> {
public Foo get() {
return Foo.createInstance();
}
}
and then bind Foo as follows:
bind(Foo.class).toProvider(FooProvider.class);
2.
Use Onami Lifecycle to have a post construct method executed after
the constructor has finished but before the created object is
injected.
see:
https://onami.apache.org/lifecycle/org.apache.onami.lifecycle.jsr250/index.html
On 04/12/2015 09:52 PM, John Calcote
wrote:
The most significant benefit of this pattern is one
which is much more obvious outside the scope of guice, and one
which is used all the time. For instance, have you ever tried to
design a class that runs itself (a run method) within a thread?
It's nice when you create one of these objects to have the
constructor simply start the thread and return. The problem is
that you have to pass "this" to the thread start routine as
static data, and it's a real issue if the OS happens to put your
constructor to sleep after it's scheduled itself to be run, but
before it returns, then the OS schedules your new thread to wake
up and do something with your partially constructed object.
Several IDEs (netbeans included) display a warning whenever
'this' is handed to an object in the constructor - it flags
these as 'suspicious constructor arguments'.
The usual way around this problem is to have a static
factory method in your class that calls a private constructor
to build your object and then initializes it with a call to a
private init function that hands 'this' to the consumer object
(e.g., thread). Now, the only way you can create your objects
is by calling it's static factory method. So... the OP's
question still stands, and for very good reason - is there a
way to annotate your class so that guice will create it by
calling a static factory instead of a constructor?
Thanks!
John
On Tuesday, March 13, 2007 at 11:00:10 AM UTC-6, Hani Suleiman
wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>
> Is there a way to tell Guice that I want to use
> "MyClass.newInstance(...)" to instantiate the class?
>
What's the benefit of doing this instead of a constructor?
> And more, can I direct Guice to use
"Factorys.createMyInteraface()" to
> instantiate an instance of MyInterface?
>
Why not just write a Provider, which is analogous to your
factory?
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-guice/8bb1b5e8-9dba-4078-a2a2-9572d11c5f00%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-guice/552AD42D.3050403%40gmx.ch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
|
