I am actually a EJB developer and very new in spring framework.
i find a couples of conflict conceptually. Like ..
#RestController use by default scope which is singleton. By single object per loc have to manage heavy trafic.
is it a good design?
Of course, it is a good design because the same instance of the object will be reused instead of keep creating it each time you need it. That is the whole point of that design pattern.
Here is a great example where singleton comes to the rescue.
https://rules.sonarsource.com/java/RSPEC-2119
By default, spring will take care of the creation and destruction of all singleton beans, while the prototype has to be manually handled. Therefore in a lot of cases prototype scope is for custom beans made by developers.
In SpringMVC Controller layer, #Scope("prototype") vs #Scope("singleton")
is it a good design?
Yes, all beans in Spring are singletons (by default).
We have 100+ controllers in several applications and it works perfectly.
If you really need to instantiate controllers more than once, you can, of course, consider other bean scopes (see brief explanation of scopes here https://www.baeldung.com/spring-bean-scopes)
Related
I am developing Spring MVC app, i need to implement singleton pattern for some kind of utilities, ex: imageuploader and others.
My question is: in what way to implement singleton for this utilities, to initialize beans for these classes and inject where i need like Controllers, Services, DAO?, or to use static field implementation of singleton to keep instance of this class?
First, try to avoid singleton as it's considered to be a bad practice. Also their interactions with other instances are difficult to test and validate, compared to non-singleton instances.
If you absolutely need it, I'd suggest you use a Spring bean so you can exploit the autowiring mechanism and Spring's bean lifecycle.
See the Beans section of the Spring reference doc for more info.
Using a Spring bean as will allow you to easily inject a mock in unit tests. However, you will only be able to access it from other Spring beans (or objects created by Spring beans that pass in a reference to it).
Also see this discussion in this question: Difference between static class and singleton pattern?
Traditionally, you'd use PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer to inject config from properties files into a Spring web-app. This blog discusses a variety of newer ways to do this with Spring.
I have a spring MVC project, in one of the controllers, i have a DB connection object that needs to be initialized only once in the controller, what is the best approach to follow when adding this initialization code, for now, i used a static block in the controller where i added the initialization code, do u have any other suggestions.
thanks in advance
Make it a Spring bean. That way it's a singleton (by default), and can be injected wherever you want.
Note that even if you leave its initialization in the controller, making it static is useless, since a controller is also a Spring bean, which is a singleton by default.
Well in spring you don't need to initialize the db connections yourself , It provide support for db connections
You just need to specify the the bean in .xml files and directly autowired that bean into your controller
use dao pattern to implement database connections see some example it will be easy container will manage db connections object life cycle for you
Thanks,
Himanshu
May I recommend you read the Spring reference guide for Object Relational Mapping and Data Access? Its quite comprehensive and details how to set up a data source, session factory, implement DAO classes, transaction management etc... Hopefully you will find this is a good place to start.
I have question about the need of using #configurable. I have gone through the blog that explains how to use #configurable. But the question that comes to my mind is, what can be the scenario when we need to use #configurable. I can think of two scenarios where it can be useful
In a legacy project, when we are already making any bean with new operator and we want to make it spring managed.
In a new project, we want to enforce that even if developer makes the bean with new operator, still it is spring managed.
Otherwise for new beans we can always declare them in applicationContext.xml and I do not see any need to declare them #configurable.
Please let me know if above understanding is correct or if I am missing something.
UPDATE:- Basically as per my understanding configurable is generally used to inject dependency when creating the object with new operator. But why would i be creating the object with new operator when i am using spring
#Configurable annotation is meant for injecting dependencies in domain-driven applications. That means, in such applications, the domain objects interact with each other to perform a certain operation.
Take the following example:
In an invoicing application, the Invoice class provides a constructor to create it, then it has methods to validate, and finally persist it. Now, to persist the invoice, you need a DAO implementation available within the invoice. This is a dependency you would like to be injected or located. With Spring's #Configurable, whenever an invoice is created using the new operator, the appropriate DAO implementation will get injected and can be used for all persist operations.
I had a more realtime scenario where I used #Configurable annotation as described here.
By default, the Bean created by Spring is singleton. They are thread-safe because they are stateless. When we want Spring to create a stateful Bean, we need to use prototype scope for the Bean definition. We need to take care of the thread-safe issues for them. All stateless Bean will be polluted when they are injected by the prototype bean. So, I just can not image where we can use the prototype scope. Can you give some typical scenario that we can / need to use prototype Spring Bean? Also how can we void the stateful pollution on other singleton beans?
There are many reasons to use prototype scope, e.g., any time you'd use "new" instead of using a singleton. A per-user bean, a per-request bean, a collection of unique beans, etc. After all, in any non-trivial application, don't you use non-singletons far more than singletons?
Singleton-scoped beans aren't thread-safe simply because they're singletons–they must be written to be thread-safe. They don't become thread-safe magically. A bean's scope is just that, its scope: it doesn't make the bean appropriate for the particular scope–that's up to the developer.
I perceive prototype scoped beans as an alternative to factory classes used to create objects. The difference is in case of prototype beans spring will save you some code for dependency injection and will also automatically proxy your objects for transactions etc. when appropriate.
I myself prefer the factory approach. One reasonable scenario for prototype scope I encountered was a stateful object, needed by different known beans and each required its own copy. A dedicated factory class would be redundant in this scenario since I did not need to create objects on the fly but only during other beans' instantiation.
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.