Well, not really sadly. I think the good solution was, as Clement mentioned in his last email of that thread, to create my own creation policy. This is something that I might try at some point in the future since I find the current instantiation mechanism cumbersome. Unless you use @Instantiate, that works like a charm.
-----Original Message----- From: Johan Ström [mailto:jo...@stromnet.se] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:22 AM To: users@felix.apache.org Subject: Re: Some questions regarding iPOJO Hi, that seems similar, yes. Did you find any good solution? Johan On 2/13/15 19:46 , Endo Alejandro wrote: > Johan, it seems that your point is then related to what I asked a > couple of months ago > > https://www.mail-archive.com/users%40felix.apache.org/msg15540.html > Check the whole thread, it might be of use to you > > -----Original Message----- > From: Johan Ström [mailto:jo...@stromnet.se] > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 11:13 AM > To: users@felix.apache.org > Subject: Re: Some questions regarding iPOJO > > On 13/02/15 16:54, Endo Alejandro wrote: >> I am no iPojo expert so I might be raising more questions than I'm >> answering >> >> You said >>> I've been playing with Provides/Requires, and Provides strategy >>> "instance". As long as I have @Instantiate on my service impl, it >>> will create one instance at startup, and then one new for every >>> iPOJO object which requests the service, as expected. However, I'd >>> like to avoid creating that extra instance on startup, but without >>> @Instantiate, the component does not become available at all and my >>> depending components will stay invalid >> I don’t think that's how instantiation works or, at least to me, you >> seem to be mixing two different concepts. If you don't want that >> initial instance then you need to just remove @Instantiate. Then, as >> you say, the component does not become available, that's expected. >> Then you have to instantiate the component using one of the >> techniques discussed here >> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-ipojo/ >> a pache-felix-ipojo-userguide/apache-felix-ipojo-instances.html >> You see the first one is @Instantiate, which doesn't work for you >> since you don't want a single instance Just use one of the other >> techniques, they are more imperative/less declarative than >> @Instantiate >> >> My question/surprise is that I didn't know you could use @Instantiate with >> strategy "instance". I always saw @Instantiate more for singleton services. >> Is that incorrect?? > From what I've understood from the docs, @Instantiate would be for > singletons only. So, no it doesn't make much sense to use it here. I was just > experimenting with it, and for some reason it triggers *almost* the behavior > I was trying to get (i.e. create new instances for each dependent instance). > > I suppose/hope there is a "correct" way to get that working, the question is > how? :) I've done some more experimentation, and I can manage to create my > instances dynamically, with my own properties, using the > Factory.createComponentInstance pattern.. But that seems pretty messy to me. > Especially when it at least seems to work like above (although not with > properties, hence my questions regarding propagation). > > Johan > >> Alejandro >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Johan Ström [mailto:jo...@stromnet.se] >> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:19 AM >> To: users@felix.apache.org >> Subject: Some questions regarding iPOJO >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm a new user in iPOJO land. Having used declarative services before, I >> must say its quite nice! >> >> I have a few questions which I have not been able to find any answers to: >> >> a) What's the status on iPOJO 2.0? Last message I can find was from 2013. >> My main interest for 2.0 is the support for inherited annotations, which >> brings me to my second question. >> >> b) Since annotation inheritance is not possible in iPOJO 1.x, I cannot have >> a "base class" with @Updated, @Validated etc. >> Are there any good design patterns which allows me do have as simple >> implementation classes as possible? >> >> What I'm after is something like this: >> >> @Component(managedservice = "my.pid", immediate = true) public class >> MyComponent extends MyBaseComponent { >> >> @Override >> protected void addResources(...) { >> .... >> } >> } >> >> public abstract class MyBaseComponent { >> @Validate >> public void validate() { >> // start up some magic server and configure it with default stuff, >> lots of code which I dont want to repeat >> // in every "real" component >> addResources(...); >> // done! >> } >> @Invalidate >> public void invalidate() { >> // teardown... >> } >> } >> >> >> The base component does lots of stuff which is shared among components, >> triggered on @Validate/@Invalidate. >> The subclass (which there will be several implementations of) just does the >> specifics for that particular component, but since it inherits form the base >> class it will automatically get calls to validate etc. >> >> I realize this is not possible today due to the use of compile-time-only >> annotations et all, and if the base component would be in compiled form, the >> manipulator has no way of seeing those annotations. >> I could just implement the methods in every class and call >> super.<method>() but if possible, I'd like to avoid that. >> >> Any suggestions? >> >> >> c) Concerning the component instance lifecycle, more specifically the call >> order of Validate/Invalidate/Updated. >> On startup, it seems Updated is called, then Validate, then Updated again >> (but not in all cases? Think I saw other order once..). >> I see two approaches: >> >> 1) Ignore first Updated if validate has not yet been called. Start my stuff >> in Validate. Reconfigure my stuff in Updated. Downside is that i reconfigure >> it once directly after startup, which I'd like to avoid. >> 2) Ignore Updated unless Validate has been called. In Validate, just mark >> "valid". In following Updated, reconfigure/startup as necessary. >> >> Version 2 is what I'll go for I guess, but I wonder, is there any way to >> detect if my component is valid or invalid, besides implementing >> Validate/Invalidate which would just update a boolean? >> >> d) Final question: I'm trying to wrap my head around services and property >> propagation.. >> I've been playing with Provides/Requires, and Provides strategy "instance". >> As long as I have @Instantiate on my service impl, it will create one >> instance at startup, and then one new for every iPOJO object which requests >> the service, as expected. However, I'd like to avoid creating that extra >> instance on startup, but without @Instantiate, the component does not become >> available at all and my depending components will stay invalid. >> >> When it comes to property propagation, I cannot really find any examples >> which makes us of this or any description on how this actually is supposed >> to work. My made up idea of how it could work is something like this: >> >> Service component ZServerImpl provides ZServer interface, with >> strategy=instance. It requires property "listenPort" to start. >> Component Y, which Requires an ZServer instance. >> Y is instantiated via config admin, and the config has property "listenPort >> = 1234". >> When ZServer var is accessed (or when Y is instantiated), the property >> "listenport" is propagated down to XServerImpl when it is instantiated >> solely for my Y instance. >> >> Basically, a way to reuse the ZServerImpl service, separately instantiated >> for each user, with params inherited from each config. >> >> Is this at all how property propagation is supposed to work? If not, any >> other patterns to archieve this? >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for your efforts on iPojo (and all other Felix projects), and >> for replies to these lengthy questions :) >> >> Regards >> Johan >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org >> >> >> DISCLAIMER: >> Privileged and/or Confidential information may be contained in this >> message. If you are not the addressee of this message, you may not >> copy, use or deliver this message to anyone. In such event, you >> should destroy the message and kindly notify the sender by reply >> e-mail. It is understood that opinions or conclusions that do not >> relate to the official business of the company are neither given nor >> endorsed by the company. >> Thank You. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org > > > DISCLAIMER: > Privileged and/or Confidential information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee of this message, you may not > copy, use or deliver this message to anyone. In such event, you should > destroy the message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. It > is understood that opinions or conclusions that do not relate to the > official business of the company are neither given nor endorsed by the > company. > Thank You. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org DISCLAIMER: Privileged and/or Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee of this message, you may not copy, use or deliver this message to anyone. In such event, you should destroy the message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. It is understood that opinions or conclusions that do not relate to the official business of the company are neither given nor endorsed by the company. Thank You.
