Hi Clement, Thanks for your answer.
I knew about "regular" factories. I did solve my problem that way in the mean time. That's the indeed the most natural solution but I was hoping for a solution that doesn't involve exposing the factory as a public service, since I want only "my code" to be allowed to create new instances. I was hoping for a solution in iPojo for this :). Is there any way to achieve this, as in getting the factory programmatically for an already annotated components from a separate bundle without exposing it as an OSGi service? :-) Thanks for your help, Simon On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Clement Escoffier <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Unfortunately, when you're using the API and the PrimitiveComponentType it > creates an empty component type that you need to describe by yourself. If > your class is already using annotations, you just have to use the published > Factory. Each (public) component type is accessible using a Factory service. > By default the service.pid is the class name of the class (except if the > 'name' is configured). > > You will find details on > http://felix.apache.org/site/how-to-use-ipojo-factories.html. > > Regards, > > Clement > > On 8 nov. 2012, at 18:04, Simon Chemouil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to define iPojo components programmatically using the API, >> and have the component class use iPojo annotations (I am trying to >> bridge another extension mechanism so I can keep using iPojo semantics >> there). >> >> I'm defining my component this way: >> >> PrimitiveComponentType type = new PrimitiveComponentType() >> .setBundleContext(origContext) >> .setClassName(componentClassName).setImmediate(true); >> >> >> type.start(); >> try { >> ComponentInstance instance = type.createInstance(); >> return ((InstanceManager) instance).getPojoObject(); >> } catch (...) { } >> >> >> However so far annotations are ignored. I know they're class >> retention, but I think the manipulator should be able to see them in >> the bytecode anyway. >> For instance I don't use .addDependency(), a field annotated with >> @Requires will not get injected. I'm also interested in getting this >> to work with custom handlers processing custom annotations! >> >> Is there any way to get this working? Pointers will be much appreciated! >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> Simon >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
