Do I need to create a new module with the Interface bound to a different implementation?
Chef newChef = Guice.createInjector(Stage.DEVELOPMENT, new Module() {
@Override
public void configure(Binder binder) {
binder.bind(FortuneService.class).to(FortuneServiceImpl.class);
}
}).getInstance(Chef.class);
Chef newChef2 = Guice.createInjector(Stage.DEVELOPMENT, new Module() {
@Override
public void configure(Binder binder) {
binder开发者_运维百科.bind(FortuneService.class).to(FortuneServiceImpl2.class);
}
}).getInstance(Chef.class);
I cannot touch the Chef Class nor the Interfaces. I am just a client binding to Chef's FortuneService to different Interfaces at runtime.
Take looks like the Robot Legs section, described in the Guice FAQ. "How to create a robot with a two Leg objects, the left one injected with a LeftFoot, and the right one with a RightFoot." But only one Leg class that's reused in both contexts.
There's a PrivateModules solution. It uses two separate private modules, a @Left one and an @Right one. Each has a binding for the unannotated Foot.class and Leg.class, and exposes a binding for the annotated Leg.class:
class LegModule extends PrivateModule {
private final Class<? extends Annotation> annotation;
LegModule(Class<? extends Annotation> annotation) {
this.annotation = annotation;
}
@Override protected void configure() {
bind(Leg.class).annotatedWith(annotation).to(Leg.class);
expose(Leg.class).annotatedWith(annotation);
bindFoot();
}
abstract void bindFoot();
}
...and to glue it all together:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(
new LegModule(Left.class) {
@Override void bindFoot() {
bind(Foot.class).toInstance(new Foot("leftie"));
}
},
new LegModule(Right.class) {
@Override void bindFoot() {
bind(Foot.class).toInstance(new Foot("righty"));
}
});
}
How do you decide which FortuneService implementation is required for Chef?You can not bind the same interface to different implementations without a way for Guice to differentiate between the two. You have to use something like this.
bind(FortuneService.class).annotatedWith(Names.named("1").to(FortuneServiceImpl.class);
bind(FortuneService.class).annotatedWith(Names.named("2").to(FortuneServiceImpl2.class);
For more information, see here
I think you can use the @Provides
annotation. See here.
精彩评论