This is actually a feature of Tapestry IoC that was stripped out long
ago (that is, private services within modules). HiveMind, the
precursor to Tapestry 5 IoC, has this feature.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Michael Zehender
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Renat,
>
> I'm currently building a product that will integrate with 3rd party modules.
>
> I want them to use only the published services to prevent them of developing
> bad hacks using the
> Internal Services instead, which might change from version to version. I
> want to provide backwards
> compatibility for the published services only and don't want to run into
> conflicts because of them
> using internal services.
>
> These 3rd party modules 'depend' on the products core services, they also
> contribute to the
> configuration of some services (but these are also published).
>
> Michael
>
> On Jul 30, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Renat Zubairov wrote:
>
>> Hello Michael,
>>
>> Would would be the usecases for this feature? Why would you need it?
>> Are you also planning to have versions for the modules?
>> How are dependencies between the modules are resolved?
>>
>> Renat
>>
>> 2008/7/30 Michael Zehender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm just looking for a way to configure the visibility of services within
>>> the IoC container. The target would be
>>> have module internal services i.e. these internal services can be
>>> injected
>>> to services within the same module only.
>>>
>>> A short example to illustrate, in the MyCoreModule I want to hide the
>>> configuration reader and the category factory:
>>>
>>> @SubModule( {
>>> MySubModule.class
>>> })
>>> @Marker(MyCore.class)
>>> public class MyCoreModule
>>> {
>>> public static void bind(ServiceBinder binder)
>>> {
>>> binder.bind(CategoryFactory.class,
>>> CategoryFactoryImpl.class).private();
>>> binder.bind(ConfigurationReader.class,
>>> ConfigurationReaderImpl.class).private();
>>> binder.bind(ConfigurationProvider.class,
>>> ConfigurationProviderImpl.class);
>>> binder.bind(ConfigurationStartup.class,
>>> ConfigurationStartupImpl.class);
>>> binder.bind(SystemControl.class, SystemControlImpl.class);
>>> }
>>>
>>> @EagerLoad
>>> public static Startup buildStartup(final List<StartupItem>
>>> startupItems, Logger logger)
>>> {
>>> return new StartupImpl(logger, startupItems);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Now we have a second Module:
>>>
>>> @Marker(MySub.class)
>>> public class MySubModule
>>> {
>>> public static void bind(ServiceBinder binder)
>>> {
>>> // ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> public static SomeService buildSomeService(CategoryFactory factory)
>>> {
>>> // shouldn't be work ! a service not found exception would
>>> be
>>> the nicest ...
>>> return ...;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Is this possible? If not is there a plan to implement it?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Renat Zubairov
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
