This sounds like a good idea but wont to get a Already bound exception ?
Den mandag den 10. marts 2014 20.26.26 UTC+1 skrev Nate Bauernfeind:
Just finished reading through the stack overflow link; thanks for sharing
it. It reminded me of the following:
I've heard/read/adopted the policy
.
Good luck,
Nate
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Mikkel Petersen
mlp...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
This sounds like a good idea but wont to get a Already bound exception ?
Den mandag den 10. marts 2014 20.26.26 UTC+1 skrev Nate Bauernfeind:
Just finished reading through the stack
for the injection to occur.
Good luck,
Nate
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Mikkel Petersen
mlp...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
This sounds like a good idea but wont to get a Already bound exception ?
Den mandag den 10. marts 2014 20.26.26 UTC+1 skrev Nate Bauernfeind:
Just finished
2014 22.36.27 UTC+1 skrev Mikkel Petersen:
Still, since not all classes are injectable (third party) you might need
to access them and populate them manually..
Den mandag den 10. marts 2014 21.27.38 UTC+1 skrev Nate Bauernfeind:
No actually you don't get already bound exceptions. Guice actually
.
sam
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Mikkel Petersen
mlp...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
in case anyone has the same problem..this is my solution so far (a real
world example)
class WorldPhysXModule extends Module {
val world: WorldPhysX = new WorldPhysX
@Provides
@Singleton
you need to request injection on the binder... it seems out of place from
my experience.
Nate
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Mikkel Petersen
mlp...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
in case anyone has the same problem..this is my solution so far (a real
world example)
class
PM, Mikkel Petersen mlp2...@gmail.comwrote:
in case anyone has the same problem..this is my solution so far (a real
world example)
class WorldPhysXModule extends Module {
val world: WorldPhysX = new WorldPhysX
@Provides
@Singleton
@Named(dimensionScale) def dimensionScale(settings
on it; since that should be a no-op. I also don't think
you need to request injection on the binder... it seems out of place from
my experience.
Nate
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Mikkel Petersen
mlp...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
in case anyone has the same problem..this is my
/4844101/how-to-inject-things-on-objects-that-were-created-using-reflection
.
sam
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Mikkel Petersen mlp2...@gmail.comwrote:
Im not sure what you mean could you post a small example ?
Den mandag den 10. marts 2014 23.28.52 UTC+1 skrev Sam Berlin:
FYI, injecting
, but a sincere
recommendation of a more fruitful course of action.
regards,
Christian.
On 8 Mar 2014, at 22:37, Mikkel Petersen wrote:
Too bad this has to be unresolved. Google ignores it, for some weird
reason.
Christian Gruber :: Google, Inc. :: Java Core Libraries :: Dependency
Injection
(or searching for existing questions/answers). I
suspect you'll find that things will become a lot simpler.
sam
On Mar 7, 2014 7:33 PM, Mikkel Petersen mlp...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
It's hard for me to describe the entire problem..I was really just
looking for a solution to this, now
Btw, Multibindings doesnt solve this..but I'm glad that you told me I do
things wrong, without telling me why, and without providing an alternative
solution. Did you even look at the sample ?
Den lørdag den 8. marts 2014 15.51.21 UTC+1 skrev Mikkel Petersen:
Are you suggestion I should google
, I'm not sure I can help much more, though
others on this list may be able to.
sam
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Mikkel Petersen mlp...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Btw, Multibindings doesnt solve this..but I'm glad that you told me I do
things wrong, without telling me why
, Mikkel Petersen mlp...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Well multiibindings solves, in a way, the listener problem. Because it
works on sets. But it doesnt solve if I wanted to access other objects from
other modules.
If you could care to explain to me why this is wrong without saying
its just
Also, the modules that configures the module might grow in complexity..then
what ? make another module that configures the module that configures the
module ?
Den lørdag den 8. marts 2014 22.19.35 UTC+1 skrev Mikkel Petersen:
Yes, but project was started before eventbus existed. Stil, I
files with me,
out of thread, I'd be happy to see if there are even better and more
concrete suggestions I can give you.
Nate
On Mar 8, 2014 9:02 AM, Mikkel Petersen mlp...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Well multiibindings solves, in a way, the listener problem. Because it
works on sets
Too bad this has to be unresolved. Google ignores it, for some weird
reason.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Mikkel Petersen mlp2...@gmail.com wrote:
Theres a thread about it in Stackoverflow.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5504555/guice-is-it-possible-to-inject-modules
Den lørdag
Hello all
I have a slight problem with guice injection when using a method annotated
with @Provides
example :
@Provides
public Service someService() {
return new SomeService()
}
I would like to get the current context injected in SomeService..I don't
understand why Guice doesn't do that
you from using a normal .to binding?
bind(SomeService.class).to(SomeService.class)
Nate
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Mikkel Petersen mlp...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Hello all
I have a slight problem with guice injection when using a method
annotated with @Provides
example
, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Mikkel Petersen mlp...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Because I want to receive other bindings:
public Service someService(@Inject Settings settings) {
SomeService s = new SomeService(settings.getHost())
inj.injectMembers(s)
return s
}
Den fredag den 7
. Then I can easily
either inject the configuration class privately for that sub-portion of my
application, or do whatever I need to with it (like configure an http
client in a @Provides method).
Happy Guicing!
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Mikkel Petersen mlp...@gmail.comjavascript
was removed.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Mikkel Petersen mlp...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Thank you all for your responses !
Problem is, my application has grown to the point that even the modules
themselves have becoming an application.
So there are many objects created in different
If I have
class Person implements Action,Worker,Role {
...
}
and
public void configure() {
Person person = new Person;
//
bind(Person.class).toInstance(person);
bind(Role.class).toInstace(person);
bind(Worker.class).toInstace(person);
}
I get this error :
Exception in
Dec., 01:59, Mikkel Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, sorry, didnt see, you explained that in your first answer.
On Dec 1, 1:58 am, Mikkel Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, why do we have to do this, is it some kind of workaround because
something better is not possible ? To me it's
I was thinking that the current notation :
public void configurePrivateBindings() {
super.configurePrivateBindings();expose
(MovingRagdoll.class).annotatedWith(Names.named(boxer1));
}
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
Ok, why do we have to do this, is it some kind of workaround because
something better is not possible ? To me it's confusing and somehow
don't mix in well with the original bind() method. I think ideally
expose() should just work like bind(), so you can do things like expose
Oh, sorry, didnt see, you explained that in your first answer.
On Dec 1, 1:58 am, Mikkel Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, why do we have to do this, is it some kind of workaround because
something better is not possible ? To me it's confusing and somehow
don't mix in well
Ok just tried it and it works fine. So great !..
On Oct 24, 12:05 am, Mikkel Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats IT ! I see it in svn, is it working now ?
On Oct 23, 11:28 pm, Robbie Vanbrabant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Mikkel Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED
Thats IT ! I see it in svn, is it working now ?
On Oct 23, 11:28 pm, Robbie Vanbrabant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Mikkel Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took a look at it and I still don't feel that it solves this problem
that I described in another post
I dont know if this makes sense, but there seems to be a problem when
you need multiple instances of
the same object, created using the same modules.
For example:
you have the mainmodule and the sub module will create the same kind
of object, only with a slight difference.
They will bind to
.
On 8 Sep., 22:55, Logan Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you want to happen here? One Phone that's shared among your Person
instances, or each Person gets its own Phone, or something entirely
different?
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Mikkel Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont
What is Guice SPI ? is it the same as Guice 2.0 or is it something
else ?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
google-guice group.
To post to this group, send email to google-guice@googlegroups.com
To
32 matches
Mail list logo
