I want to create a lot of Singleton classes in my project,
Can anyone guide me how to create an Annotation that will do my task?
Similar to Lombok do like #Getter, by using this my getters methods are created at compile time
Same, I want
to create a static instance, private constructor, and static method as getInstance(){ }
public class AgeValidation{
-----
-----
}
I want to make it as Singleton with an annotation:
public class AgeValidation {
This is a boilerPlate Code for me:
private static final AgeValidation instance = new AgeValidation();
private AgeValidation() { }
public static AgeValidation getInstance() {
return instance;
}
}
If you are building project using Spring Boot, you can easily specify singleton as scope for your bean classes.
Alternatively, you can also experiment with Dagger 2 dependency to get annotation #Singleton that will almost do the same thing.
Related
So since I've been using Spring, if I were to write a service that had dependencies I would do the following:
#Component
public class SomeService {
#Autowired private SomeOtherService someOtherService;
}
I have now run across code that uses another convention to achieve the same goal
#Component
public class SomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
#Autowired
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
}
}
Both of these methods will work, I understand that. But is there some advantage to using option B? To me, it creates more code in the class and unit test. (Having to write constructor and not being able to use #InjectMocks)
Is there something I'm missing? Is there anything else the autowired constructor does besides add code to the unit tests? Is this a more preferred way to do dependency injection?
Yes, option B (which is called constructor injection) is actually recommended over field injection, and has several advantages:
the dependencies are clearly identified. There is no way to forget one when testing, or instantiating the object in any other circumstance (like creating the bean instance explicitly in a config class)
the dependencies can be final, which helps with robustness and thread-safety
you don't need reflection to set the dependencies. InjectMocks is still usable, but not necessary. You can just create mocks by yourself and inject them by simply calling the constructor
See this blog post for a more detailed article, by one of the Spring contributors, Olivier Gierke.
I will explain you in simple words:
In Option(A), you are allowing anyone (in different class outside/inside the Spring container) to create an instance using default constructor (like new SomeService()), which is NOT good as you need SomeOtherService object (as a dependency) for your SomeService.
Is there anything else the autowired constructor does besides add code
to the unit tests? Is this a more preferred way to do dependency
injection?
Option(B) is preferred approach as it does NOT allow to create SomeService object without actually resolving the SomeOtherService dependency.
Please note, that since Spring 4.3 you don't even need an #Autowired on your constructor, so you can write your code in Java style rather than tying to Spring's annotations.
Your snippet would look like that:
#Component
public class SomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
}
}
Good to know
If there is only one constructor call, there is no need to include an #Autowired annotation. Then you can use something like this:
#RestController
public class NiceController {
private final DataRepository repository;
public NiceController(ChapterRepository repository) {
this.repository = repository;
}
}
... example of Spring Data Repository injection.
Actually, In my experience, The second option is better. Without the need for #Autowired. In fact, it is wiser to create code that is not too tightly coupled with the framework (as good as Spring is). You want code that tries as much as possible to adopt a deferred decision-making approach. That is as much pojo as possible, so much such that the framework can be swapped out easily.
So I would advise you create a separate Config file and define your bean there, like this:
In SomeService.java file:
public class SomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
}
}
In ServiceConfig.java file:
#Config
public class ServiceConfig {
#Bean
public SomeService someService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
return new SomeService(someOtherService);
}
}
In fact, if you want to get deeply technical about it, there are thread safety questions (among other things) that arise with the use of Field Injection (#Autowired), depending on the size of the project obviously. Check this out to learn more on the advantages and disadvantages of Autowiring. Actually, the pivotal guys actually recommend that you use Constructor injection instead of Field Injection
I hope I won't be downgraded for expressing my opinion, but for me option A better reflects the power of Spring dependency injection, while in the option B you are coupling your class with your dependency, in fact you cannot instantiate an object without passing its dependencies from the constructor. Dependency Injection have been invented for avoid that by implementing Inversion of Control,so for me option B doesn't have any sense.
Autowired constructors provides a hook to add custom code before registering it in the spring container. Suppose SomeService class extends another class named SuperSomeService and it has some constructor which takes a name as its argument. In this case, Autowired constructor works fine. Also, if you have some other members to be initialized, you can do it in the constructor before returning the instance to spring container.
public class SuperSomeService {
private String name;
public SuperSomeService(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
#Component
public class SomeService extends SuperSomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
private Map<String, String> props = null;
#Autowired
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
SuperSomeService("SomeService")
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
props = loadMap();
}
}
I prefer construction injection, just because I can mark my dependency as final which is not possible while injecting properties using property injection.
your dependencies should be final i.e not modified by program.
There are few cases when #Autowired is preferable.
One of them is circular dependency. Imagine the following scenario:
#Service
public class EmployeeService {
private final DepartmentService departmentService;
public EmployeeService(DepartmentService departmentService) {
this.departmentService = departmentService;
}
}
and
#Service
public class DepartmentService {
private final EmployeeService employeeService;
public DepartmentService(EmployeeService employeeService) {
this.employeeService = employeeService;
}
}
Then Spring Bean Factory will throw circular dependency exception. This won't happen if you use #Autowired annotation in both beans. And this is understandable: the constructor injection happens at very early stage of Spring Bean initialization, in createBeanInstance method of Bean Factory, while #Autowired-based injection happens way later, on post processing stage and is done by AutowiredAnnotationBeanPostProcessor.
Circular dependency is quite common in complex Spring Context application, and it needs not to be just two beans referring one another, it could a complex chain of several beans.
Another use case, where #Autowired is very helpful, is self-injection.
#Service
public class EmployeeService {
#Autowired
private EmployeeService self;
}
This might be needed to invoke an advised method from within the same bean. Self-injection is also discussed here and here.
There is a way to inject the dependencies through constructor using #RequeiredArgsContructor annotation from Lombok
#RequiredArgsConstructor
#Service
class A {
private final B b // needs to be declared final to be injected
}
In this way you don't need to specify a constructor
I'm trying to call a #Cacheable method from within the same class.
And it didn't work. Because of:
In proxy mode (the default), only external method calls coming in through the proxy are intercepted. This means that self-invocation (in effect, a method within the target object that calls another method of the target object) does not lead to actual caching at runtime even if the invoked method is marked with #Cacheable. Consider using the aspectj mode in this case. Also, the proxy must be fully initialized to provide the expected behavior, so you should not rely on this feature in your initialization code (that is, #PostConstruct).
It means, #Cachable(also #Transactional) works by proxy classes which is Spring AOP in. a internal call in the same class make call by 'this' instead of proxy classes.
To solve the problem, I should call a method by proxy or using AspectJ(another AOP).
So, I found 4 solutions.
What is your choice? and why others are not recommended?
Please, share your opinion!
using AspectJ (another AOP)
get the Bean from ApplicationContext and use it
#Service
public class UserService implements Service {
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext applicationContext;
private Service self;
#PostConstruct
private void init() {
self = applicationContext.getBean(UserService.class);
}
}
self-autowiring using #Resource //since Spring 4.3
#Component
#CacheConfig(cacheNames = "SphereClientFactoryCache")
public class CacheableSphereClientFactoryImpl implements SphereClientFactory {
/**
* 1. Self-autowired reference to proxified bean of this class.
*/
#Resource
private SphereClientFactory self;
#Override
#Cacheable(sync = true)
public SphereClient createSphereClient(#Nonnull TenantConfig tenantConfig) {
// 2. call cached method using self-bean
return self.createSphereClient(tenantConfig.getSphereClientConfig());
}
#Override
#Cacheable(sync = true)
public SphereClient createSphereClient(#Nonnull SphereClientConfig clientConfig) {
return CtpClientConfigurationUtils.createSphereClient(clientConfig);
}
}
make the Bean scope of the class as 'prototype' instead of 'singleton'
#Service
#Scope(proxyMode = ScopedProxyMode.TARGET_CLASS)
class AService {
private final AService _aService;
#Autowired
public AService(AService aService) {
_aService = aService;
}
#Cacheable("employeeData")
public List<EmployeeData> getEmployeeData(Date date){
..println("Cache is not being used");
...
}
public List<EmployeeEnrichedData> getEmployeeEnrichedData(Date date){
List<EmployeeData> employeeData = _aService.getEmployeeData(date);
...
}
}
I'm a newbie in spring :)
Actually, I choose the 4th solution, but I felt it isn't a good way. because I just need to call the caching method by proxy, and it make several beans to achieve it.
After reading articles, I think AspectJ is the best choice. It looks cool, Spring recommends it, and many people also recommend too.
But I don't understand how to AspectJ works (I will study) and I also don't know why others is not recommended.
references
Spring Cache #Cacheable - not working while calling from another method of the same bean
Spring cache #Cacheable method ignored when called from within the same class
https://spring.io/blog/2012/05/23/transactions-caching-and-aop-understanding-proxy-usage-in-spring
https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/integration.html#cache
#Component
#PropertySources({ #PropertySource("classpath:mail.properties") })
public class A implements B {
#Value("${mail.team.address}")
private String teamAddress;
// has getter and setters .not shown for brevity.
Now when i call the class i get the value of teamAddress as NULL .But in the property file mail.team.address has some value.
My property file is present under src/main/resource folder
Making a call
A a = new A ();
a.someMethodinClassA();
You can not create instance of class by yourself when you want Spring to resolve #Value annotation.
See documentation:
Note that actual processing of the #Value annotation is performed by a BeanPostProcessor which in turn means that you cannot use #Value within BeanPostProcessor or BeanFactoryPostProcessor types. Please consult the javadoc for the AutowiredAnnotationBeanPostProcessor class (which, by default, checks for the presence of this annotation).
Simple solution for you: just annotate class with any #Component annotation and let Spring to create an instance of your class.
You can't create (with a "new" keywoard) for spring bean. If you do it like this, spring doesn't participate in the object creation and configuration, which means that there is no autowiring, the bean is not in Application Context, etc. And of course, #Value annotation won't be processed among other things
The better way is to inject the class A to the code that you used in your example:
A a = new A ();
a.someMethodinClassA();
Show become:
#Component
public class SomeClass {
private final A a;
public SomeClass(A a) {
this.a = a;
}
public void foo() {
a.someMethodinClassA();
}
}
You should read some basics around spring dependency injection. The class that you have autowired with #Component is scanned via component scanning and its object is created by spring container for you.
that is the reason you should not create the object yourself using new keyword.
wherever in your new class you want to use your class A object you can autowire it as below:
#Component
public class TestC{
private A a; // this object will be injected by spring for you
}
I have the following components, in two different files:
#Component
public class Chauffeur {
Car car;
public Chauffeur(Car car){
this.car = car;
}
public void go(){
System.out.println("Chauffeur");
car.drive();
}
}
#Component
public class Car{
public void drive() {
System.out.println("Drive car");
}
}
the following configuration file:
#Configuration
#ComponentScan
public class DriveableConfiguration {
}
and the following test:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(classes=DriveableConfiguration.class)
public class DriveableTest {
#Autowired
Chauffeur chauffeur;
#Test
public void chauffeurTest(){
chauffeur.go();
}
}
All the classes above are in the same package and the test is passing.
In the test I annotated chauffer with #Autowired, which should mean that the Spring container looks after the creation of the instance of Chauffeur without the developer needing to explicitly instantiate it.
Now, the constructor for Chauffer needs an instance of Car, so there is no default constructor for that class. Nonetheless the container creates it, injecting the required instance in the constructor.
Is the #Autowired saying to the container to instantiate the element with whatever (Components, Beans) it can provide, included parameters in the constructor? If so, in what case is it needed to use #Autowired to annotate a constructor?
Only if you use Spring 4.3+. In such a case #Autowired on constructor is optional if you have one non default constructor.
You can check the example here.
So as of 4.3, you no longer need to specify an explicit injection annotation in such a single-constructor scenario. This is particularly elegant for classes which otherwise do not carry any container annotations at all, for example when programmatically registered
For versions lower than 4.3 you will an exception will be thrown:
the container will throw an exception looking for a default
constructor, unless you explicitly indicate autowire mode
‘constructor’ in your bean definition setup (e.g. in an XML )
This is an Spring MVC project with Hibernate.
I'm, trying to make a Logger class that, is responsible for inputting logs into database.
Other classes just call proper methods with some attributes and this class should do all magic.
By nature it should be a class with static methods, but that causes problems with autowiring dao object.
public class StatisticLogger {
#Autowired
static Dao dao;
public static void AddLoginEvent(LogStatisticBean user){
//TODO code it god damn it
}
public static void AddDocumentEvent(LogStatisticBean user, Document document, DocumentActionFlags actionPerformed){
//TODO code it god damn it
}
public static void addErrorLog(Exception e, String page, HashMap<String, Object> parameters){
ExceptionLogBean elb=new ExceptionLogBean();
elb.setStuntDescription(e);
elb.setSourcePage(page);
elb.setParameters(parameters);
if(dao!=null){ //BUT DAO IS NULL
dao.saveOrUpdateEntity(elb);
}
}
How to make it right? What should I do not to make dao object null?
I know that I could pass it as a method parameter, but that isn't very good.
I'm guessing that autowired can't work on static objects, because they are created to early to autowiring mechanism isn't created yet.
You can't #Autowired a static field. But there is a tricky skill to deal with this:
#Component
public class StatisticLogger {
private static Dao dao;
#Autowired
private Dao dao0;
#PostConstruct
private void initStaticDao () {
dao = this.dao0;
}
}
In one word, #Autowired a instance field, and assign the value to the static filed when your object is constructed. BTW, the StatisticLogger object must be managed by Spring as well.
Classical autowiring probably won't work, because a static class is not a Bean and hence can't be managed by Spring. There are ways around this, for example by using the factory-method aproach in XML, or by loading the beans from a Spring context in a static initializer block, but what I'd suggest is to change your design:
Don't use static methods, use services that you inject where you need them. If you use Spring, you might as well use it correctly. Dependency Injection is an Object Oriented technique, and it only makes sense if you actually embrace OOP.
I know this is an old question but just wanted to share what I did,
the solution by #Weibo Li is ok but the problem it raises Sonar Critical alert about assigning non static variable to a static variable
the way i resolved it with no sonar alerts is the following
I change the StatisticLogger to singlton class (no longer static)
like this
public class StatisticLogger {
private static StatisticLogger instance = null;
private Dao dao;
public static StatisticLogger getInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new StatisticLogger();
}
return instance;
}
protected StatisticLogger() {
}
public void setDao(Dao dao) {
this.dao = dao;
}
public void AddLoginEvent(LogStatisticBean user){
//TODO code it god damn it
}
public void AddDocumentEvent(LogStatisticBean user, Document document, DocumentActionFlags actionPerformed){
//TODO code it god damn it
}
public void addErrorLog(Exception e, String page, HashMap<String, Object> parameters){
ExceptionLogBean elb=new ExceptionLogBean();
elb.setStuntDescription(e);
elb.setSourcePage(page);
elb.setParameters(parameters);
if(dao!=null){
dao.saveOrUpdateEntity(elb);
}
}
I created a service(or Component) that autowire the service that i want and set it in the singlton class
This is safe since in spring it will initialize all the managed beans before doing anything else and that mean the PostConstruct method below is always called before anything can access the StatisticLogger
something like this
#Component
public class DaoSetterService {
#Autowired
private Dao dao0;
#PostConstruct
private void setDaoValue () {
StatisticLogger.getInstance().setDao(dao0);
}
}
Instead of using StatisticLogger as static class I just use it as StatisticLogger.getInstance() and i can access all the methods inside it
You can pass the DAO to StatisticLogger from where you call it.
public static void AddLoginEvent(LogStatisticBean user, DAO dao){
dao.callMethod();
}
It might be too late to put an answer to this question, especially when a question is already having an accepted answer. But it might help others in case they face the same issue.
inside the StatisticLogger class create an instance of the Dao service.
public static Dao daoService = new Dao();
then, auto-wire the service instance through the constructor of the StatisticLogger class.
#Autowired
public functionName(Dao daoService0) {
this.daoService = daoService0;
}
//use this service as usual in static class
daoService.fun();
I think this is the simplest solution for the problem.