Yep, working fine now, thanks Alen. This is my second week of Guice,
expect more silly questions :-)
2008/10/20 Andrew Clegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Aah! I didn't realise you could do that. I thought providers just
> worked like this:
>
> // module
> bind( MyClass.class ).toProvider( MyClassProvider.class );
>
> // logic
> @Inject MyClass myClass; // Guice calls MyClassProvider#get() here
> behind the scenes
>
> I hadn't worked out that you can bind *to* a provider and then inject
> the Provider interface instead of the class it provides.
>
> Thanks, I'll give it a go that way.
>
> Andrew.
>
> 2008/10/20 Alen Vrečko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> I don't get it:)
>>
>> //in config
>> bind(DispatchHandler.class).toProvider(SoapDispatchHandlerProvider.class);
>>
>> //in your logic class
>> public class Foo{
>>
>> @Inject
>> Provider<DispatchHandler> myProvider;
>>
>> public void bar(SomeObject... oes){
>> for( SomeObject o : oes)
>> {
>> DispatchHandler h = myProvider.get();
>> // Send o to h ...
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> is this not what you want?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alen
>>
>> On 20 okt., 14:31, "Andrew Clegg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I needed to inject the provider so I can do things like...
>>>
>>> for( SomeObject o : anArray )
>>> {
>>> DispatchHandler h = myProvider.get();
>>> // Send o to h ...
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> I don't think there's currently a better way to do this is there?
>>>
>>> Andrew.
>>>
>>> 2008/10/20 Alen Vrečko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > I don't think you shuld be conserning yourself with binding provider
>>> > directly.
>>>
>>> > bind(DispatchHandler.class).toProvider(SoapDispatchHandlerProvider.class);
>>>
>>> > now if you do
>>>
>>> > @Inject
>>> > Provider<DispatchHandler> handler;
>>>
>>> > Guice will use SoapDispatchHandlerProvider. Hope it helps.
>>>
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Alen
>>>
>>> > On 20 okt., 13:04, "Andrew Clegg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> Morning folks,
>>>
>>> >> I have a custom provider for creating SoapDispatchHandler objects,
>>> >> which implement an interface called DispatchHandler.
>>>
>>> >> I want to set up a binding in my module such that any reference to
>>> >> Provider<DispatchHandler> is injected with an instance of
>>> >> SoapDispatchHandlerProvider, the provider class which builds and
>>> >> returns SoapDispatchHandler objects. (Needless to say,
>>> >> SoapDispatchHandlerProvider implements Provider<DispatchHandler>.)
>>>
>>> >> I originally did it like this:
>>>
>>> >> bind( new TypeLiteral<Provider<DispatchHandler>>(){} )
>>> >> .to( SoapDispatchHandlerProvider.class );
>>>
>>> >> but this gives me an error:
>>>
>>> >> Binding to core guice framework type is not allowed: Provider.
>>>
>>> >> So to work around it I created an empty interface like so:
>>>
>>> >> public interface DispatchHandlerProvider extends
>>> >> Provider<DispatchHandler> {}
>>>
>>> >> and then made SoapDispatchHandlerProvider implement
>>> >> DispatchHandlerProvider instead of directly implementing
>>> >> Provider<DispatchHandler>. This works; I can go:
>>>
>>> >> bind( DispatchHandlerProvider.class ).to(
>>> >> SoapDispatchHandlerProvider.class );
>>>
>>> >> without any problems. But I can't help feeling empty interfaces smell
>>> >> a bit funny. Is this the right way to approach this scenario?
>>>
>>> >> Thanks!
>>>
>>> >> Andrew.
>> >>
>>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"google-guice" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-guice@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
