How I can the existing instance of an exported part in MEF container . If I have class A which was composed in the container , I need in some places in my code to get the instance , if I call GetExortedValue() , then if class A signed with CreationPolicy.NonShared , then it'll be instantiated again and I need the current one .
Thanks in advance ...
Obviously calling GetExportedValue<T> on your container could result on the generation of a new instance of T (depending on the CreationPolicy used for the part), but there is an option to call GetExport<T> which will return you a Lazy<T> instance. This is the singular part that is generated and only generated the once:
var part = container.GetExport<IMyInterface>();
In the above example, part would be an instance of Lazy<IMyInterface>, so when you first access part.Value, the delegate bound in the Lazy<IMyInterface> calls back to the container to create and compose the IMyInterface instance and is returned. Subsequent calls to part.Value will always return this same instance.
Related
I'm trying to use Zenject in Unity. I have an interface and several implementations of it.
I want to inject with ID but also that the implementation will have the tick interface since it's not a MonoBehaviour.
So I have an IAttacker interface and a MeleeAttackImpl implementation.
Container.Bind<IAttacker>().WithId(AttackerTypeEnum.MELEEE).To<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsTransient();
I want to add
Container.BindInterfacesTo<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsTransient();
But it creates 2 different objects instead of instances that have the Tick interface and bind them to IAttacker.
If you want to bind an interface to a determined implementation, why do you use two bindings?
If you want only one instance of the object I would try:
Container.BindInterfacesAndSelfTo<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsSingle();
or:
Container.Bind<IAttacker>().To<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsSingle();
As Single() In the case you need the same instance provided from the container along the app (like a singleton).
From the documentation:
"AsTransient - Will not re-use the instance at all. Every time ContractType is requested, the DiContainer will execute the given construction method again."
Many times intance is created in the binding itself. So maybe from the two binding two instances are created, one from each binding.
In case you need to create instances dynamically with all their dependencies resolved, what you need a is Factory.
It seems that each component that creates its own instance of [a] service. I don't understand why.
I note this AngularJs 2 - multiple instance of service created, but I'm not clear on the correct solution. Do I create the service instance _myService in main:
void main() {
bootstrap(AppComponent,[MyService]);
}
and then copy it to [child] components (because I also remove MyService from the component providers)? This doesn't seem correct, because the components reference _myService before it's instantiated, and I have to check it for being null.
Thanks
Steve
You can use factory constructor pattern like here.
Creating your service in the bootstrap will make sure there is only one instance of it for the app (if you don't provide it again in some component).
You get multiple copies of it only if you provide it in some #Component - then each instance of the component (and all its children) will have a separate instance of the service.
I am new to scaldi. I have a class being used in my cloud environment configuration where I want two things to happen.
bind [EnvironmentInfo] to new EnvironmentInfo initWith(_.init())
First, I want it to be a singleton. It retrieves the runtime information (Google AppEngine in this case) and it should do this once on instantiation. It seems like initWith is a good choice.
Next, I want instantiation to be delayed until first request. Following the execution path it is being instantiated well before the first call.
If I can get delayed instantiation, then initWith should move to the class constructor.
My answer ended up being simple. I abstracted the singleton "state" and accessed it as a 'lazy val ...'.
It appears that Unity IoC defaults to creating a new instance of an object when it resolves a type. But my question is there someway to be explicit and tell my container that whenever I have it resolve an object type to give me a new instance of said type?
IE i want to be explicit and force the container to make sure theInstance is a new instance each time it resolves type:MyNewObject (or all types for that matter)
MyNewObject theInstance = container.Resolve<MyNewObject>();
Yes it is easily configurable by a TransientLifetimeManager
When you register a class should have something like
container.Register<IMyNewObject, MyMewObject>(new TransientLifetimeManager());
//or
container.Register<MyMewObject>(new TransientLifetimeManager())
If you're applying IoC principles properly, your class declares its dependencies and then the container handles the lifecycles of them. For example, you want to grab an HttpRequest object and the container handles providing the current thread-local one, or whatever.
Your code shouldn't really have to care about the life-cycle of its dependencies, as it should never be responsible for clearing up after them or what-have-you (all of that should be encapsulated in the dependency itself, and invoked by the container when it is shut down).
However, if you do need to care in your code about whether you get a singleton instance or a per-injected instance of the same type, I like to be explicit about it by using the type system itself, just as the Guice container for Java does with its Provider pattern. I've created a Guice-style IProvider<T> interface that I use to do this, and I just wire it up with a simple static factory method for them like so:
Provider.Of<Foo>(() => { /* Code to return a Foo goes here */})
"core" refers to the initial piece of the application that is loaded.
In order to bind url to places, GWT uses PlaceTokenizer<P extends Place>. When loading the application from the url, it calls the method P getPlace(String token) to retrieve a new instance of the place to call.
due to the asynchronous nature of code splitting, I can't create the place inside a runAsync in this method. So I have to put all the places of my app in the core.
To link places to activity, GWT callsActivity getActivity(Place place) (from com.google.gwt.activity.shared.ActivityMapper) to retrieve a new instance of the activity.
Once again, i have to put all my activities in the core.
Here's what I want to try: Write a custom com.google.gwt.place.shared.Delegate that
bind itself on PlaceChangeRequestEvent. If the AppPiece corresponding to the requestedPlace isn't loaded, it calls event.setWarning(NEED_TO_LOAD_MODULE)
in the confirm(String message) method, always return false when the message equals NEED_TO_LOAD_MODULE (so it doesn't bother the user), and load the module via RunAsync.
Once the module is loaded, call goTo(requestedPlace)
Each AppPiece of my application contains a bunch of activies and the corresponding views. Since the mappers are only called when PlaceChangeEventis fired, i could generate a new instance of my activity via AppPiece.getSomeActivityInstance().
I'm pretty sure this will work, but what bother me is that
Finding wich AppPiece to load depending on the requestedPlace will force me to write code that will be very similar to my mappers
I would like to have my places inside the corresponding AppPiece
Overriding Delegate for this purpose is tricky, and I'm looking for a better solution
You don't have to put all your activities in the core (as you call it): while an Activity instance is retrieved synchronously, it's allowed to start asynchronously. This is where you'd put your GWT.runAsync call.
See http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5129 and https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-web-toolkit/8_P_d4aT-0E/discussion