What benefits would this have over what I imagine your colleagues are doing?
public interface ResourceEnvironment {
Image getImage(String name);
// ... other resource-providing methods ...
}
public class SomeService {
private final Image image;
@Inject public SomeService(ResourceEnvironment env){
image = env.getImage("/com/mycompany/myasset.png");
}
//big complex methods doing big complex method things.
}
//with a module containing
public class ModuleToDoThat implements Module{
public void configure(){
//...
}
@Provides ResourceEnvironment getResourceEnvironment() {
return new ResourceEnvironment() {
@Override public getImage(String name) {
return toImage(getClassLoader().getResource(name));
}
Image toImage(URL url) { ... }
// ... implement other resource-providing methods ...
};
}
}
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Geoff Groos <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> So it's occurred to me that a number of classes in our codebase are
> injecting a so called 'ResourceEnvironment' so they can use it to retrieve
> a static image from whiten our deployed jar. This got me wondering if I
> could achieve something as slick as injecting the image directly with guice:
>
> public class SomeService{
>
> private final Image image;
>
> @Inject
> public SomeService(@Named("/com/mycompany/myasset.png") myAssetImage){
> image = myAssetImage;
> }
>
> //big complex methods doing big complex method things.
> }
>
> //with a module containing
> public class ModuleToDoThat implements Module{
> public void configure(){
> //...
> }
>
> @Provides Image getImageWithName(Named name){
> return getClassLoader().getResource(name.value());
> }
> }
>
> This would actually reduce a fair bit of code on our code base; using
> annotations to pass meta-data about the specific instance that's needed *at
> runtime* would be a really cool feather for guice's cap.
>
> AFAIK the feature I'm requesting is binding annotations to be whitelisted
> (along with the calling Injector) as things that you can request without
> providing an explicit configuration path for them. A little less obtusely:
> with the injector you don't need to tell guice how to provide a provider
> method with an injector, it just assumes the injector you're looking for is
> the one doing the provide-ing. I would ask that binding annotations be
> given the same 'scope', such that any binding annotations used would be
> automatically wired to that provider method (and if they don't exist, the
> provider methods eligibility for provision removed).
>
> Needless to say this is a fair bit of rope to hang yourself with, in the
> event that you need to start passing more information than is available at
> annotation-writing-time, some developers (myself included) might try to
> ham-fist some things into static scope so that they can be used by the
> annotation. That said, I think the benefit outweighs the cost; it would be
> really slick and cut 50 lines of cruft off my codebase.
>
> I'm *fairly* certain I could hack something together with provision
> listener and a stack (probably static), but rather than go down that road I
> figured I should post this as a request-for-help and/or a feature request
> here first.
>
> Is there a way to do this without using the SPI that would give me the
> same effect? If I was to try to do it myself with a stack and a provision
> listener, would it be as hard as I think it is? Is this something I should
> request a little more formally (by creating a github issue)?
>
> cheers,
>
> -Geoff
>
>
> --
> 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/882e5b98-a32a-4f5a-a47f-02b4fc8d117b%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-guice/882e5b98-a32a-4f5a-a47f-02b4fc8d117b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> 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/CA%2BF8eeSUm1Q3H6KXfjCdYjRGSchz-3YzBab-JGPA9CMm9VW4PA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
