Re: Failing Guice builds
On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:28:37 PM UTC-4, Christian Gruber wrote: This quarter I'm hoping to get several Google open-source java projects onto an external continuous integration (of some variety, even if it's just duck-taped) but the net effect is that I hope we will have Guice's tests running on more than one JVM, and more than one platform. Well, in the meantime I'm happy to provide this build of Guice on a Solaris variant: http://timboudreau.com/builds/job/Guice%203/ Any chance the tests will be fixed soon? It's not the end of the world, but I don't really like seeing failing builds on my dashboard ;-) -Tim -- 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 google-guice+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-guice@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: creating instance using injector without passing module info again.
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 4:56:47 AM UTC-4, kumar santosh wrote: 1. I have class AModule where we are binding are the dependencies. 2. In class Test i created Instance of B using Injector. like . Injector in = Guice.createInjector(new AModule()) // getting instance of B in.getInstance(B); 3. I am in same jvm, In some other class D, can i get instance of some class C without again calling Guice.createInjector(new AModule()) Two ways: - Create D using the injector, and have B injected into it (this is pretty much *the* thing Guice is good for) - Pass a reference to the injector from Test to D. If there is no connection between B and D at all, maybe there is some code which instantiates both of them? I hesitate to say put the injector into a static field since that's exactly the pattern Guice exists to eliminate, but if it's test code and there's really *no* other way, it would work. But I'd say reconsider your design if that looks like the way you have to do it. -Tim -- 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 google-guice+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-guice@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: creating instance using injector without passing module info again.
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, Nate Bauernfeind wrote: I tend to avoid using Guice for most tests as I find it hard to actually get decent tests when Guice is in the mix. Interesting. As the author of one Guice-based test framework, I'm curious what problems you run into. For any specific class I want to treat I heavily make use of mockito, and so to even use Guice I would create an override module with the mocks and effectively ends up giving a false sense of security related to any Guice code. How is the sense of security you get from machine-generated mocks different from the sense of security you'd get from hand-written mocks? :-) -Tim -- 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 google-guice+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-guice@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Scopes.SINGLETON uses a global lock issue 183
What is it about production mode that makes you think it isn't necessary
(whereas it would be necessary with development mode)?
sam
On Oct 16, 2013 12:27 AM, Romain Gilles romain.gil...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I add a comment
#19https://code.google.com/p/google-guice/issues/detail?id=183#c19 on
this issue since April. I would like to know if it's a stupid comment or
not. In fact we fall in some case in a deadlock situation with the class
level lock used by the Singleton scope. And I think in case of production
stage the lock and event the volatile instance field are not required. For
me only development mode require this kind of protection and we always
create our Injector in production stage.
Does it make sens for you?
Here a code snippet of Singleton Scope (guice 3.0) :
public static final Scope SINGLETON = new Scope() {
public T ProviderT scope(final KeyT key, final ProviderT
creator) {
return new ProviderT() {
/*
* The lazily initialized singleton instance. Once set, this will
either have type T or will
* be equal to NULL.
*/
private volatile Object instance;
// DCL on a volatile is safe as of Java 5, which we obviously
require.
@SuppressWarnings(DoubleCheckedLocking)
public T get() {
if (instance == null) {
/*
* Use a pretty coarse lock. We don't want to run into
deadlocks
* when two threads try to load circularly-dependent objects.
* Maybe one of these days we will identify independent graphs
of
* objects and offer to load them in parallel.
*
* This block is re-entrant for circular dependencies.
*/
synchronized (InternalInjectorCreator.class) {
if (instance == null) {
T provided = creator.get();
// don't remember proxies; these exist only to serve
circular dependencies
if (provided instanceof CircularDependencyProxy) {
return provided;
}
Object providedOrSentinel = (provided == null) ? NULL :
provided;
if (instance != null instance != providedOrSentinel) {
throw new ProvisionException(
Provider was reentrant while creating a singleton);
}
instance = providedOrSentinel;
}
}
}
Object localInstance = instance;
// This is safe because instance has type T or is equal to NULL
@SuppressWarnings(unchecked)
T returnedInstance = (localInstance != NULL) ? (T) localInstance
: null;
return returnedInstance;
}
Regards,
Romain.
--
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 google-guice+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-guice@googlegroups.com.
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 google-guice+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-guice@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
