Johan
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:44:01 +0200, Knut Wannheden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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]
-- you too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
