I actually started thinking about this question you asked...
"What do you think about defining a Module[] factory as config param for the
Lister, so the modules compatible to your framework are not limited to the
default parameter less constructor?"
This is exactly why I allow a custom InjectorFactory implementation to be
created and configured. You could define your own if you needed Modules to
be instantiated with parameters. The "Guice.Modules" context-param is
strictly for the DefaultGuiceInjectorFactory. There isn't much to it. If you
have another Factory that you think could provide common functionality for
Stripes-Guice users then we could certainly add that to the code base. But
we could add it as another type of InjectorFactory implementation.
Brandon Goodin
Silver Mind Software
http://www.silvermindsoftware.com
[email protected]
615-306-3652
http://www.linkedin.com/in/bgoodin
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Brandon Goodin <[email protected]>wrote:
> Wow... so many questions.. haha.
>
> Q. What do you think about how convenient it will be to write unit test für
> a java bean using this static method? ;-) And of course this breaks the LoD
> A. The ServletContext is easy to mock up. So as long as your unit test
> performs the Setup on the ServletContext you are fine. I would expect
> developers to use this judiciosly and not as a common means of accessing the
> injector. The static also allows me to more easily hook Guice functionality
> into Stripes.
>
> Q. Why use a Set<Injector>? are you planning to use multiple Injectors?
> A. Good question. The thought did cross my mind. But, I don't have any real
> use cases to support a reason for that. The actual reason for the Set had
> more to do with just having a convenient way to access a statically set
> variable from a non static method :) The Set works as a nice little
> container.
>
> Q. I'm wondering if somebody is extending the AnnotatedClassActionResolver.
> If so, this one will be stucked. I can only think of providing 2 base
> classes as solution - which seems a little bit ugly from my point of view.
> A. This *is* certainly not what I would consider the way I'd prefer to do
> things. But, it is the only solution available in Stripes 1.5. I implented
> Stripes-Spring the same way after extensive discussion with the Stripes
> devs. As a result of these and other conversations the Stripes gurus have
> made concessions in Stripes 1.6. Internally this will change with Stripes
> 1.6 because of the new ObjectFactory. I am working to create a stripes-guice
> for stripes 1.6.
>
> Q. I really do like the constructor based injection more than the setter
> based, but can it happen, that stripes autobinding overrides a property of
> your actionBean? Of course we are all security freaks und we all use strict
> binding but what about a less security aware programmer or some who doesn't
> use final? I don't trust myself, thats why I use the Interceptor/Setter
> based solution. Maybe a configuration param should enable/disable
> constructor based injection.
> A. I'm not sure I totally understand what you are saying. The constructor
> based injection would be for properties you aren't exposing to Stripes to
> override. I would expect something like a Service class not a domain object.
> But, heck... you could do whatever you wanted really. I don't want to get in
> the business of trying to stop folks from failing. It is way too much work
> and never pays off :D
>
> Q. What do you think about defining a Module[] factory as config param for
> the Lister, so the modules compatible to your framework are not limited to
> the default parameter less constructor?
> A. Great idea. I'll add it to my list of planned features.
>
> Q. How are you using the ActionBeanContext in your applications? I made the
> experience that i don't need more than the build in functions when using
> guice as DI framework.
> A. I am not currently using this in any of my projects. After implementing
> this I checked out Freddy's section on Stripes and Guice in his book and
> decided to add it because it was easy to do.
>
> Q. Are you planing to implement some logging?
> A. I don't have a specific plan. But, I could add that to my list of things
> to add.
>
> Thanks for the feedback
>
>
> Brandon Goodin
> Silver Mind Software
> http://www.silvermindsoftware.com
> [email protected]
> 615-306-3652
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/bgoodin
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Stripes-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stripes-users
