ok, I guess I found the answer, I was very close: TypeLiteral typeLiteral = TypeLiteral.get(Types.newParameterizedType(List.class, clazz)); bind(typeLiteral).toInstance(list);
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Dmitry Skavish <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, > I think my explanation was confusing. Let me try to explain it better. I am > getting class names from some configuration files. So basically I have a > list of Class objects. I want to create bindings from List<each of thouse > classes> to some providers of these lists (or instances, it does not really > matter). > > For example if I have configuration with class names: > java.lang.Integer, java.lang.String, java.lang.Long then the bindings should > be equivalent to the following: > > bind(new TypyLiteral<List<Integer>>() {}).to(provider of List<Integer>) > bind(new TypyLiteral<List<String>>() {}).to(provider of List<String>) > bind(new TypyLiteral<List<Long>>() {}).to(provider of List<Long>) > > so that if I have a class: > > class A { > @Inject > A(List<String> strings, List<Integer> ints) {} > } > > then the right list is injected into the constructor. > > the problem is that those configurations are known at runtime and I have to > construct the bindings at runtime as well. I don't know the types at compile > times and I cannot create those bindings statically in the code. > > Any ideas how to do that? > > Thanks! > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I guess a common advice is to stay away from .toInstance(). >>> >>> But assuming you have to do that (maybe it's a test), I would do it this >>> way to avoid messing with reflection directly: >>> abstract class ListModule<T> extends AbstractModule { >>> >>> protected ListModule(List<T> list) { >>> this.list = list; >>> } >>> >>> @Provides List<T> provideList() { >>> return list; >>> } >>> } >>> >>> new ListModule<String>(new ArrayList<String>()) {}; >>> >>> FeedBurner has a convenience class that can be used as: >>> >>> new BindingModule<List<String>>(Lists.newArrayList()) {}; >>> >> >> Oops. I thought this is another list. Please ignore this part, it's >> irrelevant. >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Dmitry Skavish <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I can't figure out how to bind class parametrized with a given Class? >>>> >>>> For example if I have something like this: >>>> >>>> Module createModule(Class clazz, List list) { >>>> return new AbstractModule() { >>>> protected void configure() { >>>> bind(??????).toInstance(list); >>>> } >>>> }; >>>> } >>>> >>>> then after this call: createModule(String.class, new ArrayList()) >>>> >>>> I have binding from List<String> to my list >>>> >>>> This binding should be equivalent to this one: bind(new >>>> TypeLiteral<List<String>>() {}).toInstance(list); >>>> >>>> I tried to the following, but compiler does not like it and I am not >>>> really sure this is the right way: >>>> >>>> bind(Key.get(Types.newParameterizedType(List.class, >>>> clazz))).toInstance(list); >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> -- >>>> Dmitry Skavish >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dmitry Skavish > -- Dmitry Skavish --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
