The beauty of Guice and jclouds is that you should be able to extend
it by providing custom implementations for many things. You just have
to pass a Guice module with the custom bindings then creating the
context.
You could have something like:
class CustomBindings extends AbstractModule {
@Override
public void configure() {
// Your custom bindings here, to provide custom implementations
for jclouds interfaces
}
}
BlobStoreContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("filesystem")
.overrides(properties)
.modules(ImmutableSet.of(new CustomBindings(), <other modules>))
.buildView(BlobStoreContext.class);
When it comes to getting stuff from Guice, you can request the classes
to the Guice injector. The jclouds Context base class provides utility
methods to access that. For example:
context.utils().injector().getInstance(RequestedObjectClass.class);
HTH!
I.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 11:04, Meyer, Carsten <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> thanks for your fast response!
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:38:15AM +0000, Meyer, Carsten wrote:
> > We are trying to extend the Blob Store "filesystem" in such a way that
> Container are tied to a filesystem location instead of being placed a subdir
> of the basedir.
> >
> > Our first approach was based on symbolic links. Here, each container is
> a symblic link pointing from the basedir subdirectory to the intended target.
> The advantage of this approach is that it is transparent to jclouds.
> Unfortunately, it is rather tricky to administer in Windows OS (the unix
> approach of symbolic links is straight-fowrward). Since we are running under
> Windows as well as Unix, this approach is not feasible.
>
> I have little background in Windows but does `mklink /d src dst` solve
> this?
>
> We can create symbolic links in this way, that works fine. Our problem is
> that symbolic links in Windows have a complexity that is higher than in Unix
> systems. Windows requires certain rights foe users to be able to create
> symbolic links. There is also a difference between remote and local links.
> Since our application is running on premise at the customer, administration
> of this complexity is not feasible. Also, there are still JDK bugs concering
> symbolic links under Windows but we were able to work around them.
>
> > Our alternative right implements the handling of the
> container/filesystem relationship.
> >
> > We extended "FilesystemStorageStrategyImpl" by overriding the method
> "buildPathStartingFromBaseDir" in such a way that that path is built with the
> right container integration. The methods "deleteContainer" and
> "createContainer" are not needed in our use case.
>
> I wonder if creating a filesystem BlobStore per container could also
> address your use case? These instances have little overhead and may
> give you the control you want.
>
> We created that blob store and it basically works fine.
>
> > The implementation is provided by our own "BlobStoreContextModul" so
> that within our application we only need to change the Provider ID.
> >
> > BlobStoreContext context =
> ContextBuilder.newBuilder("containerperfilesystem")
> > .overrides(properties)
> > .buildView(BlobStoreContext.class);
> >
> > Unfortunately we do not have experience with Guice, our application is
> Spring-based, and we have two questions:
> >
> > 1) Can the binding that is defined in the BlobStoreContextModul be
> overriden with our own strategy implementation, e.g. through the
> ContextBuilder?
>
> With the caveat that these are not public or stable interfaces, you
> should be able to extend FilesystemBlobStoreContextModule with a
> configure method which stubs in your strategy class. Then override the
> builder via:
>
> ContextBuilder.newBuilder("filesystem")
> .defaultModule(CustomStrategy.class)
> .build();
>
> So every Java class can be inserted via ."defaultModule()" - or maybe even
> instances?
> Currently (2.1.0) I cannot see this method in the ContextBuilder.
> Or am I misunderstanding something?
>
> > 2) Since our application is spring-based we are looking for a clean way
> to inject our own Container-Filesystem-Configuration from our application
> into the Guice binding or have the Guice object accessible from our
> application. Is this possible?
>
> Sorry I cannot help with Spring issues.
>
> Sorry, but the question was misleading.
> Since our application is non-guice-based we are looking for a clean way to
> inject our own Container Configuration from our application into the Guice
> binding or have the Guice object accessible from our application. Is this
> possible?
>
> Thanks again and best regards,
> Carsten
>
>
