As mentioned in the answers to this question, Spring can invoke private constructors through reflection.
Generally when we create a class with a private constructor, we use it for preventing instantiation outside of the class as in the case of a Singleton class, or for preventing instantiation of classes with static utility methods/constants.
What is the reason why Spring allows beans with private constructors to be instantiated ?
You would have to ask the Spring developers. It's probably a matter of convenience.
It allows you to create Classes that cannot be instantiated except through the Spring Container, or other reflection based technique.
It allows you to require your Java code to use other constructors which require different inputs.
If Spring could not use a private or package access constructor then you would have to declare constructors with public access. Your Java code could then use them. Your intent not to use classes this way would not be so clear.
Related
I have a simple Quarkus resource:
#Path("/rosters")
#Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
#Consumes(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
public class RosterResource {
private final RosterService rosterService;
public RosterResource(RosterService rosterService){
this.rosterService = rosterService;
}
#GET
#Path("/{rosterId}")
public Response getRoster(#PathParam("rosterId")Long rosterId){
return Response.ok(rosterService.getRosterById(rosterId)).build();
}
}
I am trying to inject the RosterServiceinstance in my resource, but I am getting a javax.enterprise.inject.UnsatisfiedResolutionException. However, if I use the #ApplicationScoped annotation on RosterService, then everything works just fine. Is there a way of injecting the RosterService class in my resource without using annotations? In other words, is there a way of making RosterService discoverable by the Quarkus container without directly annotating the class?
Edit: looking into the CDI docs, it seems that you can manually register beans using a method with a #BuildStep annotation. However, it is not clear to me which class should contain the annotated method)
Another option would be to use a Jandex index
To the best of my knowledge, Quarkus only implements so called annotated bean discovery. That means that all CDI beans in Quarkus have to have a bean defining annotation. #ApplicationScoped is one of them.
EDIT: regarding a Jandex index, that allows you to scan for beans in additional JARs. In other words, it will only expand the set of classes that are scanned for a bean defining annotation.
When it comes to a #BuildStep method -- that is only possible in a Quarkus extension. Extensions are powerful (and indeed they can define additional beans) but also complex. You can start at https://quarkus.io/guides/building-my-first-extension, but it may feel overwhelming. It may also feel like this is not the right thing to do if you want to just make your class a bean -- and that would be true. But if your class comes from an external library that you can't change, extension makes sense.
Is there a specific reason why you don't want to annotate your service class with #ApplicationScoped (or any other of the bean discover/scope annotations)?
The only other way that I'm aware of (instead of annotations) is - as you yourself mentioned - the use of Jandex index.
I learned that when IoC container initializes, it creates instances and injects the dependencies.
How does it create the objects? Is it creating them using the new operator?
In Java the only way to instanciate an object, is to call a constructor.
You can call the constructor using the new operator or by reflection.
Spring use reflection to instanciate an object.
1 Classes if they have a non-private constructor defined and same is declared in configuration metadata, are instantiated using reflection. getDeclaredConstructor() of a class API
Some classes are instantiated using the static or non static factory methods if defined in the metadata.
Please read section 4.3.2 Instantiating beans from spring documentation
As in the title above, I am confused about pros cons between injecting applicationContext by directly #Autowired annnotation or implementing ApplicationContextAware interface in a singleton spring bean.
Which one do you prefer in which cases and why? Thanks.
Actually, both are bad. Both of them tie your application to the Spring framework, thus inverting the whole inversion-of-control concept. In an ideal world, your application should not be aware of being managed by an ApplicationContext at all.
Once you have chosen to violate this principle, it doesn't really matter how you do it. ApplicationContextAware is the legacy version that has been around at least since Version 2.0. #Autowired is a newer mechanism but they work in pretty much the same way. I'd probably go with ApplicationContextAware, because it semantically makes clear what it is about.
As #Sean Patrick Floyd says, the need of ApplicationContext is often due to a bad design. But sometimes you have no other option. In those cases I prefer the use of #Autowired because is the way I inject all other properties. So, if I use #Autowired for injecting MyRepository, why can't I use it for ApplicationContext or any other Spring bean?
I use Spring interfaces only for those things I can't do with annotations, for example BeanNameAware.
If you need to get a prototype in a singleton then you can use method injection. Basically, you create an abstract method that returns the object you need and spring will return the prototype everytime you call that method. You define the "lookup-method" in your spring config. Here are some links:
http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html#beans-factory-method-injection
http://java.dzone.com/articles/method-injection-spring
Since you are not extending any of the spring classes your application is always separated from the framework. Most of the cases you will not wanted to inject the ApplicationContext as it, but will need to inject the beans defined in the ApplicationContext.
The best case is always to stick to the bare minimum, until and unless you have any specific requirement and this is very simple with spring.
So either,
Annotate your beans and scan them in application context, then use #Autowire to wire them up.
Use application context to wire your bean expediencies(old xml style configs). You can use #Autowire with this approach also.
When you want to control the bean life cycle, you can read the API and customize it, but most of the time these general settings will do the job.
Here are some examples.
Spring Auto-Wiring Beans with #Autowired annotation
Spring Auto-Wiring Beans XML Style
Spring IoC container API Docs
There is no need to use ApplicationContext at all.
ObjectFactory
If you need to use prototype scoped beans in a singleton bean, inject an org.springframework.beans.factory.ObjectFactory.
For example using constructor injection:
#Service
class MyClass {
private ObjectFactory<MyDependency> myDependencyFactory;
public MyClass(ObjectFactory<MyDependency> prototypeFactory) {
myDependencyFactory = prototypeFactory;
}
}
Why
Now what's the benefit over using ApplicationContext ?
You can substitute this dependency (e.g. in a test) by simply passing a lambda (since ObjectFactory is a #FunctionalInterface) that returns a stubbed version of it.
While it is possible to stub the ApplicationContext, it is not clear in that case which beans will be looked up and need to be stubbed.
Does it makes sense in Spring to use #Autowired to wire directly to a concrete class and not to an interface (and make use of 'by type' autowiring)
If a class doesn't implements an interface wouldn't it be better to instantiate it via constructor or a factory (keeping things simple); rather than make it a Spring bean just for the heck of it.
Does it makes sense in Spring to use #Autowired to wire directly to a concrete class and not to an interface
Sure. The practice of autowiring is independent of what you're autowiring. It'll work with classes just as well as interfaces.
However, whether or not it's a good idea is debatable, although this is a more general question of whether you should always introduce an interface for a given class, rather than talk directly to the class type. The benefits include easier unit-testing and a cleaner design, at the expense of code clutter.
There's another good reason to autowire interface types rather than class types, which is that if Spring needs to generate a proxy object around the bean before injecting it, then if the bean's class defines any interfaces, then the proxy will implement those interfaces, and will not be type-compatible with the bean class itself. If you then try and autowire that bean by class type, it will fail. The easiest way to avoid this annoying scenario is to always autowire by interface type, that way it will lways work as you expect.
and make use of 'by type' autowiring
If you mean container-level byType autowiring, then you don't want to do that. It's the old Spring 1.x style of autowiring, and it's highly inflexibile (see limitations of autowiring).
Stick with #Autowired, it's much more flexible and easier to control.
If a class doesn't implements an interface wouldn't it be better to instantiate it via constructor or a factory (keeping things simple); rather than make it a Spring bean just for the heck of it.
The two questions are completely separate. An object should be made a Spring bean if you need Spring to control its dependencies and lifecycle, regardless of whether or not it implements interfaces. If you find that the object has no dependencies, and no meaningful interface, then perhaps there is no reason to make it a bean.
You will have to decide if hardwiring this dependency into other classes is ok. For instance, how many different classes are likely to require this dependency? If the answer is many then you will be creating many instances of this class where only one is required.
Also, what dependancies does this concrete class have? You will have to configure those inside the class that depends on it.
The object of dependency injection is to reduce the dependencies between classes and make your code loosely coupled.
I have a service in my application which is a singleton.
My application is being bloated with the use of spring framework.
I am confused over to use the singleton service as
1: Plain Old Singleton [Access them statically when required]
OR as a
2: Spring singleton bean. [Use DI to inject when required]
Which approach is correct ?
The Spring singleton scope is not the same as the Singleton design pattern, which is not the same as a class with static methods.
From the documentation
"Please be aware that Spring's concept of a singleton bean is quite different from the Singleton pattern as defined in the seminal Gang of Four (GoF) patterns book. The GoF Singleton hardcodes the scope of an object such that one and only one instance of a particular class will ever be created per ClassLoader. The scope of the Spring singleton is best described as per container and per bean. This means that if you define one bean for a particular class in a single Spring container, then the Spring container will create one and only one instance of the class defined by that bean definition."
Also, note you need to be very careful using a Spring singleton as a service that web requests will utilize. Since each request is on its own thread, you can have threading issues if your singleton maintains any state.
To answer your question: Create a class that implements an interface, and use Spring to DI it appropriately. If your service does not maintain state, you can scope it to singleton, otherwise you can scope it to prototype.
I use Spring's beans whenever possible. The framework was designed to manage these things, and it is probably better than me at it. Another reason to use Spring's dependency injection is the possibility to unit-test with mocks instead of the real utility code, thus focusing the unit-test to the exact scope.
EDIT:
To answer the question in the comment, the only case I can think of for a non-bean singleton would be a utility code class, which would contain short pieces of generally reusable code in public static methods. Anything else requires instantiation, and therefore - a bean.