In my case I was simply trying to wrap a hivemind service around an existing service (which is generated code), where accessing a static member is required. But I can of course also write a new interface and class to wrap this.
--knut "Johan Lindquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I may have misunderstood this - but doesn't hivemind always return the > same instance when you ask for a service once it has created one (unless > it is a threaded service model, when you are worried about state anyway > and probably want different instances)? If so, what is the need to have a > static instance? I suppose I can see a use for it to share data between > threads, but the singleton service should suffice? > > Johan > > On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:52:58 +0200, Christian Essl > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's very good (and fast implemented). But do you realy have to do the > > double-check on the class. I mean the user sees anyway what class it is > > from the JavaDoc and HiveMind will always check that it fits the Service > > interface. > > > > Sure if the static field changes this ensures consistency, but on the > > other hand it would be also very convient to change all services > > referenced but just changing the static field without the need to go > > into the module. > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:40:12 +0200, Knut Wannheden > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I have created a copy of the hivemind.BuilderFactory service which > >> allows me > >> to write: > >> > >> <invoke-factory service-id="my.BuilderFactory"> > >> <construct class="foo.Bar" static-field="foo.Bar.INSTANCE"/> > >> </invoke-factory> > >> > >> given that I have something like: > >> > >> package foo; > >> public interface Bar { > >> static final INSTANCE = new BarImpl(); > >> } > >> > >> The class attribute is used to check that the object specified by the > >> static-field is of a given type, which is an interface in this example. > >> > >> --knut > >> > >>> That's certainly a good idea. > >>> > >>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:50:42 +0200, Knut Wannheden > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hi, > >>> > > >>> > I was wondering whether it would make sense to extend the > >>> BuildFactory > >>> > service (or maybe add a new wervice) to also be able to construct > >> objects > >>> > by > >>> > returning the value of a classes static field or by calling a static > >>> > method > >>> > on a class. The former would obviously be simpler. E.g. (as a new > >>> > service): > >>> > > >>> > <invoke-factory service-id="hivemind.StaticBuilderFactory"> > >>> > <construct class="foo.Bar" static-field="BAZ"> > >>> > <set.../> > >>> > </construct> > >>> > </invoke-factory> > >>> > > >>> > --knut > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: > >>> http://www.opera.com/m2/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > you too? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
