Just finished all the main features I'd like to see in the DI
container. So here is a new checklist:
* annotation-based field dependency injection
* annotation-based constructor dependency injection
* injection of map and list "configurations" (allows to add things
like extra ExtendedTypes)
* binding interfaces to implementation classes via fluent API
* binding interfaces to "provider" (same as "factory") classes
* merging multiple DI "modules"
* dependency cycle detection
The container is still pretty small (all the di package classes are
~26K when compiled), and it seems like it was worth the effort (vs.
just using Guice for instance).
Now will try to find time to define a Cayenne stack based on the DI,
instead of the old Configuration:
Andrus
On Nov 15, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Just for kicks wrote a simple DI container for Cayenne. I checked it
> in partially to sanbdox folder until the ASF SVN repo went down (http://monitoring.apache.org/
> ), so I'll commit the rest on Monday, or whenever SVN becomes
> available.
>
> This no-frills DI container took me only a couple of hours to write
> (it borrows some Guice API, but implementation is all mine). It
> supports
>
> * annotation-based field dependency injection
> * binding interfaces to implementation classes via fluent API
> * binding interfaces to "provider" (same as "factory") classes
> * merging multiple DI "modules".
>
> The whole thing is only 14K after compilation (so it beats all full
> featured DI containers in size). Of course that's because it doesn't
> have all the fancy stuff (of which we'll add at least a few more
> things) such as constructor injection, dependency cycle resolving,
> dynamic interface proxies, bound object lifecycle, integration with
> Spring, etc. Since we are not planning a general purpose container,
> we might survive without most of those.
>
> Here is how the current Configuration class might look like when it
> is based on DI:
>
> public class Configuration {
>
> private Injector injector;
>
> public Configuration() {
> this(new CayenneModule());
> }
>
> public Configuration(Module... modules) {
> this.injector = DIBootstrap.createInjector(modules);
> }
>
> public DataChannel getDataChannel() {
> return injector.getInstance(DataChannel.class);
> }
>
> public ObjectContext getNewContext() {
> return injector.getInstance(ObjectContext.class);
> }
>
> // we may create getters for other "services" if we need to
> }
>
> And the actual configuration class (aka "module") used above:
>
> public class CayenneModule implements Module {
>
> public void configure(Binder binder) {
> binder.bind(EventManager.class).to(EventManagerImpl.class);
> binder.bind(DataChannel.class).to(DataDomain.class);
> binder.bind(QueryCache.class).toProvider(LRUCacheFactory.class);
> binder.bind(QueryLogger.class).toProvider(FancyLogger.class);
> // an so on...
> }
> }
>
> "CayenneModule" is what users can override (e.g. simply subclass),
> providing alternative implementations for some services.
>
> The next step in this prototype would be an attempt to define the
> current Cayenne stack in terms of DI.
>
> Andrus
>
> On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> And I just discovered that both Spring (3.0RC1) and Juice (trunk)
>>> support
>>> the annotations from this JSR. So it could make sense for us to
>>> use these
>>> annotations internally as well. Couldn't dig any info on the
>>> Tapestry IoC
>>> support for this JSR, but they are on the JSR "support group", so
>>> at least
>>> they are watching it.
>>
>> Thiago, the Tapestry member on the support group, just learned that
>> it
>> had been approved. Howard didn't even know the JSR existed. There's
>> no discussion on adding in the annotation support to Tapestry IoC and
>> I suspect it will happen, but Tapestry is behind the ball on that
>> one.
>>
>> --
>> Kevin
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Nov 21 2009 - 16:50:20 EST