Re: Dropwizard can't handle guice injections in the dependent jars

Can you provide a reproduceable use case? Include version of dropwizard. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:47 AM Vivek Kothari wrote: > I am facing the same issue.. did you find any solution for the same? > > > On Saturday, 19 October 2013 05:16:44 UTC+5:30, Rohit Nigam

Re: Is it a good practice to annotate two different classes with same annotation?

It's certainly not bad practice. Though, the context depends on your situation entirely. If you consider the example Guice provides: https://github.com/google/guice/wiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#how-do-i-build-two-similar-but-slightly-different-trees-of-objects It's certainly conceivable that in

Re: Dependencies

Maybe you want to make CacheMonitor an optional dependency? See: https://github.com/google/guice/wiki/Injections#optional-injections On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:00 AM Michiel ten Hagen wrote: > All > > I have two classes, Cache and CacheMonitor. If someone binds the

Re: How do integrate scala into guice ?

In general this is an anti-pattern in Guice. If you have to pass instances of every object in your graph to the guice module constructors then you're not using Guice for any injection at all. What does your java version of this use-case look like? It seems that you did not translate it to Scala

Re: How do integrate scala into guice ?

: Initializable) = { injector.injectMembers(obj) obj.init() } def inject(obj: AnyRef) = { injector.injectMembers(obj) } } On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 9:01:30 PM UTC+9:30, Nate Bauernfeind wrote: In general this is an anti-pattern in Guice. If you have to pass

Re: Private Modules

I've found that despite a few drawbacks, private modules are the way to go. I seem to end up with complicated object graphs and have had some serious issues (customer affecting) when something is used that was not intentionally to be around for public consumption0 (like a single threaded

Re: Private Modules

Luke, If you use annotations for everything that you intend to be private then how do you re-use a class across more than one module? For example, suppose I have an interface A. I have two different implementations B and C. Both B and C are singletons for two different modules (and each of the

Re: Generic type inference

, and we can just pretend T is its erased type. So long as the user supplies us the T and we don't have to worry about locating anything that references a T... there won't be any unknowns. sam On Wed, May 27, 2015, 1:08 AM Nate Bauernfeind nate.bauernfe...@gmail.com wrote: Sam, I don't see

Re: migrate enums

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, I love making my factories inner static interfaces! It *really* helps keep relevant things together. Doing that here is also a natural choice. On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:17 AM Nate Bauernfeind nate.bauernfe...@gmail.com wrote: I want to say yes, but I'm afraid

Re: migrate enums

servlet and .get(request.getAction()).doAction(); Fred On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Nate Bauernfeind nate.bauernfe...@gmail.com wrote: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, I love making my factories inner static interfaces! It *really* helps keep relevant things together. Doing that here is also

Re: Generic type inference

/google/inject/assistedinject/FactoryProvider2.java if you want to give it a go. sam On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:08 PM Nate Bauernfeind nate.bauernfe...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming you meant: interface FooFactory { T FooT create(T bar); } No, this does not work. It would require one-to-many

Re: migrate enums

: Action action = Action.parse(request.getAction()); action.doAction(); If I migrate them to static inner class, would it be like this? Action action = ActionFactory.create(request.getAction())); action.doAction(); klc On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 11:54:56 PM UTC+8, Nate Bauernfeind wrote

Re: migrate enums

What is it that you like about the pattern that you want to keep? Are you looking for static inner classes? You can couple the pattern with an assisted inject factory, or providers depending on your use case. public abstract class Action { public abstract double doAction(); public static

Re: Generic type inference

Assuming you meant: interface FooFactory { T FooT create(T bar); } No, this does not work. It would require one-to-many bindings, which, if you read the recent forum's history, is not supported. This is the closest you can get. I use it pretty frequently: interface FooFactoryT { FooT

Re: How can I customize binding lookup ?

David, When I find myself wanting functionality such as one to many binding, I usually realize what I want to accomplish doesn't really need Guice. Have you thought about writing your own alert factory? Something like: public interface AlertFactory { T extends Alert T newAlert(ClassT cls); }

Re: Does ProviderFoo call un-annotated default constructors?

You probably want to call: binder.requireExplicitBindings() in your Guice Module to catch these kinds of errors earlier than later. There are other methods that might solve your needs (like requireAtInjectOnConstructors), see:

Re: Guice with ServiceTracker feature like OSGi

, cause the strict couple between bean and register. Am Dienstag, 10. Februar 2015 21:16:18 UTC+1 schrieb Nate Bauernfeind: Couple of comments. 1. Resolving generic type dependencies can be done without named annotations. The trick is to use a Guice TypeLiteral. See: http://google.github.io/guice

Re: Guice with ServiceTracker feature like OSGi

Couple of comments. 1. Resolving generic type dependencies can be done without named annotations. The trick is to use a Guice TypeLiteral. See: http://google.github.io/guice/api-docs/latest/javadoc/index.html?com/google/inject/TypeLiteral.html Your bind becomes something more like: bind(new

Re: Best way to replace dependencies ?

Sounds like this depends on exactly what behavior you want. You can overwrite bindings in a module with an Override's module. See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/483087/overriding-binding-in-guice You could use a PrivateModules to divide your object graph to control which chunks get which

Re: JerseyServletModule and resteasy RequestScopeModule - conflicting bindings

Have you tried using AbcModule as an override module?: @Override protected Injector getInjector() { return Guice.createInjector(Modules.override(new JerseyServletModule() { @Override protected void configureServlets() {

Re: Creating a new injector, with new bindings, but keep all singletons?

It sounds like you might want to use a childInjector pattern here. Structure it something like this: Global Injector binds everything that is truly a singleton in your project. Then in the service(s) where you want to be able to set some state and create a new object that references the global

Re: Creating a new injector, with new bindings, but keep all singletons?

).toInstance( ).. ... I think that would work but there are edge cases I am probably missings. On Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:49:58 AM UTC-7, Nate Bauernfeind wrote: It sounds like you might want to use a childInjector pattern here. Structure it something like this: Global Injector binds

Re: Creating a new injector, with new bindings, but keep all singletons?

Do you ever run two tasks simultaneously? If not, perhaps you can create a special provider that you can swap out the Caller where you're currently considering creating a new injector. import com.google.inject.Provider; import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference; public class

Re: Is there something like getInstaceOnlyIfCreated on the Injector?

In my opinion, you have a few options: 1) You can create a class (and inject it) that optionally injects all of the things you might shutdown, a la something like this: class TestShutdownHelper { @Inject(optional = true) public TimeoutManager timeoutManager = null; ... public void

Re: Named parameters and command line apps?

I've found that things that tend to run from command-line arguments tend to not warrant Guice, and things that use Guice tend to warrant a configuration file. I've come to really appreciate's Dropwizard's approach which uses YML to configure and jackson to parse that into a POJO. I also tend to

Re: Avoid injector deeps in code and lack of provided bindings.

you do). Nate On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Nate Bauernfeind nate.bauernfe...@gmail.com wrote: I did a tiny code test, and it seems like this is already going to fail at initial start time (note: not compilation time). object Test { import net.codingwell.scalaguice.InjectorExtensions

Re: Multiple configurations

where it's injected. I hope that all makes sense. I'm still fairly new to Guice... On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 19:42:58 UTC-5, Nate Bauernfeind wrote: Can you explain what you mean with a small amount of code? Can you annotate the assisted inject factories? Maybe you can mix PrivateModule's

Re: starting and stopping services?

I've spoken about my approach to this elsewhere, apologies if you've already come across this. I use Dropwizard which has a concept of Managed classes which get started and stopped by dropwizard. Though, you could do something like this yourself too if you are opposed to dropwizard. My abstract

Re: Avoid injector deeps in code and lack of provided bindings.

I'm going to point you in the direction of a Guice best-practice guideline which strongly suggests not doing what you've chosen to do. https://github.com/google/guice/wiki/InjectOnlyDirectDependencies Specifically, months down the road what if MyObject also needs a BarService? And then a

Re: Avoid injector deeps in code and lack of provided bindings.

I should've read the example more closely, I guess the example is the other way around (injecting a B into A so that A can get access to C through B). Either way, I'm sure that assisted inject is a better practice ;). On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Nate Bauernfeind nate.bauernfe...@gmail.com

Re: Avoid injector deeps in code and lack of provided bindings.

of time, that you need. The object that's needed in the hypothetical 'if' block that I was talking about would be created by the injector ahead of time. It's a direct dependency... On Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:35:30 AM UTC-7, Nate Bauernfeind wrote: I'm going to point you in the direction

Re: Multiple configurations

Can you explain what you mean with a small amount of code? Can you annotate the assisted inject factories? Maybe you can mix PrivateModule's along with AssistedInject factories to get the effect you're looking for (and potentially exposing the factory with an annotation?). Nate On Wed, Oct 1,

Re: Assisted-Injection

I think this is a really good question and I think that your concern centers around the difference between injection and initialization. In the case of B depending on A initializing something this is my opinion: Clearly, you have some dependency in the order in which things are initialized. When

Re: Guice Vaadin Request

I think it's perfectly reasonable to use Guice this way. You may want to make sure that you're being careful about not leaking memory (i.e. it looks like your event bus is shared across calls, so you'll want to make sure things like that aren't holding on to the object graph). Also, if you use

Re: idle thought: host code on github instead?

Yes please! On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Sam Berlin sber...@gmail.com wrote: What do folks think of the idea? It'd make accepting patches easier (with pull requests, etc), and I'm sure there's other benefits for folks using the code too. We could also migrate issues if anyone knows a

Re: Overriding Guice module already installed by child

Here's a short answer solution that should solve your problem, but it results in two separate object-graphs as defined by A: Y and Z should probably be private modules and they should only expose the things that are being used. Being that they are third party, then I strongly recommend creating a

Re: New in git head: OptionalBinder

I'm very excited about this; are you going to cut another beta release anytime soon? Is it possible to extend this to use other wrapper classes? I'd like to add this to the Scala-Guice project for Scala's option class if possible. On Apr 1, 2014 7:33 PM, Sam Berlin sber...@gmail.com wrote: Ever

Re: Intercept bean creation

You can also create an injection listener which allows you to modify any object that gets created by Guice. Here is an example in scala that adds every object to a guava event bus: bindListener(Matchers.any, new TypeListener { def hear[I](typeLiteral: TypeLiteral[I], typeEncounter:

Re: Injecting String properties into multiple modules

Can you move the property-file loading into a separate public module (named something like ConfigurationModule)? It seems like the problem is that your loading them in a private module and then not exposing any of the properties. Or I could be missing the bigger picture. On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

consuming the content. Whereas in the case where the service maintains a listener list/mapping then there really can only be one generator. Nate On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dirk Olmes dirk.ol...@googlemail.comwrote: On 03/10/2014 09:27 PM, Nate Bauernfeind wrote: No actually you don't

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

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 that guice modules should sincerely avoid any conditional logic. If you do find yourself with some conditional logic try and split your module up by

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

..anyway that's my fifty cent. Den mandag den 10. marts 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

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

:31 PM, Dirk Olmes dirk.ol...@googlemail.com wrote: On 03/10/2014 09:27 PM, Nate Bauernfeind wrote: No actually you don't get already bound exceptions. Guice actually treats the injection as a setter based injection (it doesn't care how you name methods; but I tend to use the word register

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

be in one module..but perhaps the two do not have much in common logic wise than this object. Den lørdag den 8. marts 2014 01.08.14 UTC+1 skrev Nate Bauernfeind: I can't say that I've ever dealt with an experience of having 100+ unique modules (now if you want to talk about 100+ child

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

What about your use case prevents 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 mlp2...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all I have a slight problem with guice injection when using a method annotated with

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

...@gmail.com 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. marts 2014 23.32.42 UTC+1 skrev Nate Bauernfeind: What about

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

) { install(new FactoryModuleBuilder().implement(source, klass).build(factoryKlass)); } On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Nate Bauernfeind nate.bauernfe...@gmail.com wrote: It's a bit more work, but you could consider using assisted injection for this kind of use-case. My typical pattern looks like

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

doesn't have the object graph injected. Den fredag den 7. marts 2014 23.54.17 UTC+1 skrev Nate Bauernfeind: It's a bit more work, but you could consider using assisted injection for this kind of use-case. My typical pattern looks like this: public class Example { @Inject public

Re: Injection of context in a @Provides method ?

at providers, which allow dependencies to be injected into modules. My application has at least 100 modules by now, and growing. So far I have used static public objects, but as everyone knows, that is bad practice. Den lørdag den 8. marts 2014 00.07.22 UTC+1 skrev Nate Bauernfeind

Re: How can i bind the different subtype of same type at runtime using google GUICE

I don't really understand what you're asking. Perhaps, you don't realize that Guice does not require you to bind to an interface. For example, why can't you bind each class? bind(TestInstanceHelper.class).asEagerSingleton(); ... Then inject each instance into your DeliverableHelper? Or if you

Re: How exactly is Assisted-Inject supposed to be used to be useful...

FWIW, I use AssistedInject Factories for dynamic content. So for example, I've written a monitoring system where nodes announce themselves in real-time (via Zookeeper) and user-input information like alert configuration gets stored in a simple key-value store (and also shows up dynamically).

Re: Dropwizard can't handle guice injections in the dependent jars

And which module is your C3 class bound in, and what does it's binding look like? Are you using a specific dropwizard-Guice library? On Oct 18, 2013 6:51 PM, Rohit Nigam tanuro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi I am using dropwizard and it is not able to handle the injections in the dependent jars. For

Re: Tripping up on Bindings that are never used

constructor (so long as there's a default no-args constructor). sam On Sep 20, 2013 12:02 AM, Nate Bauernfeind nate.bauernfe...@gmail.com wrote: Hmph, I was using a Module where I called 'requireExplicitBindings' under the covers. But it turns out that parameterization does not apply

Re: Tripping up on Bindings that are never used

My suggestion was to do this to your HistoricalExtension constructor: @Inject public HistoricalExtension( Injector injector ) { this.val = injector.getInstance(CharSequence.class); } Which results in output of this: ===

Re: Tripping up on Bindings that are never used

I think this is the easiest way to do this (written in Scala purely for terseness): class A class B @Inject() (a: A) class TestModule extends PrivateModule { def configure() {} @Provides def createB(a: Provider[A]): B = { new B(a.get()) } } If you change Provider[A] to A you get

Re: Tripping up on Bindings that are never used

and the extension. On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Nate Bauernfeind nate.bauernfe...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is the easiest way to do this (written in Scala purely for terseness): class A class B @Inject() (a: A) class TestModule extends PrivateModule { def configure

Re: How do I inject Mock classes for all subclasses of particular class

struggling with the generic bind as the bind is bind(Class).to(Class) but I would effectively need bind(Class).to(Mocked instance of Class). -Dave On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:03:37 PM UTC-5, Nate Bauernfeind wrote: Have you considered crawling all of your classes and writing a generic

Re: Desktop scoping and lifecycles

In this kind of situation I would try to put my non-reusable code behind [well-thought] interfaces as much as possible. Think about all the [known] use-cases and really try and separate the common logic from the custom logic. If you can hide the state behind a logical interface that has always

Re: How do I inject Mock classes for all subclasses of particular class

Have you considered crawling all of your classes and writing a generic bind method that you can call for any found class that extends View? (see: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javatips/jw-javatip113.html?page=2) On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM, David Parish dpar...@gmail.com wrote: We use

Re: Issue with AssistedInject and bindListener() in Guice 3.0

matches(Class subclass) { return superclass.isAssignableFrom(subclass); } -- It sadly does the same thing than what I explicitly do. On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:44:28 PM UTC-4, Nate Bauernfeind wrote: Did you try using Matchers.subclassesOf(**InitableAfterCreation.class

Re: Issue with AssistedInject and bindListener() in Guice 3.0

Did you try using Matchers.subclassesOf(InitableAfterCreation.class)? On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM, electrot...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry that I'm still not 100% sure, and I do not have a test case to show, but I'm pretty sure I did find the main cause of this issue in my application. I

Re: a simple question ( after reading Dhanji's book)

The pattern that seems to make the most sense to me is to use assisted injection to create your a's (if they take more than just a b) and then you can add Named annotations to each b binding. Our create a custom annotation, which is my preference since ide's track usage. On Aug 16, 2013 9:40 AM,