I have a class containing constants:
namespace Test.AppService
{
public static class Const
{
public const bool Tmr = false;
public const int Pti = 10;
...
I was wondering if this would be a good candidate for dependency injection or would it be better to leave it as it is and just add using for Test.AppService into every page? Would appreciate advice on this.
Reading your comment about needing to use a different set of constants if that is something you see happening then Dependency injection makes sense. For example if you are using different environments like DEV, QA, Release comes to mind.
You would need to declare an interface with all your public fields. Implement that Interface in different classes with all the possible different scenarios. Then you can register your interface and the class with your desired set of values that you would be able to swap as needed.
For example:
public interface IConfiguration
{
public string ConnectionString {get;}
}
public class QaValues : IConfiguration
{
public string ConnectionString
{ get
{
return "qaconnection";
}
}
}
public class ReleaseValues : IConfiguration
{
public string ConnectionString
{ get
{
return "releaseconnection";
}
}
}
DependencyService.Register<IConfiguration,QaValues>();
Related
I tried to implement a custom config type and it worked. However, when I use the custom type with a group of config using the #ConfigProperties it fails to automatically recognize the property by its name and instead treats the property as an object with a nested property.
How can I implement such a behavior correctly? (I am new to Quarkus, so please correct me if I am doing something wrong here)
Here is a code snippet that converts a custom type:
public class Percentage {
private double percentage;
public Percentage() {}
public Percentage(double percentage) {
this.percentage = percentage;
}
public void setPercentage(double percentage) {
this.percentage = percentage;
}
public double getPercentage() {
return this.percentage;
}
}
#Priority(300)
public class PercentageConverter implements Converter<Percentage> {
#Override
public Percentage convert(String value) {
int percentIndex = value.indexOf("%");
return new Percentage(Double.parseDouble(value.substring(0, percentIndex - 1)));
}
}
/// this works ------
public class Hello {
#ConfigProperty(name = "custom.vat")
Percentage vat;
public Hello () {
}
// .....
}
/// however, this fails
#ConfigProperties(prefix = "custom")
public class CustomConfig {
public Percentage vat;
public Percentage profit;
}
javax.enterprise.inject.spi.DeploymentException: No config value of type [double] exists for: custom.vat.percentage
at io.quarkus.arc.runtime.ConfigRecorder.validateConfigProperties(ConfigRecorder.java:39)
Unfortunately, I believe this does not work because Quarkus #ConfigProperties, handles these cases as if they were subgroups and try to map nested properties with the configuration (and not use the Converter).
Feel free to open up an issue in Quarkus GH if you feel this should change: https://github.com/quarkusio/quarkus/issues
Alternately, you can use SR Config #ConfigMapping: https://smallrye.io/docs/smallrye-config/mapping/mapping.html. It covers a few more cases, including direct Conversion and in the future it may replace Quarkus #ConfigProperties.
Update: Is there a way to achieve what I'm trying to do in an IoC framework other than Windsor? Windsor will handle the controllers fine but won't resolve anything else. I'm sure it's my fault but I'm following the tutorial verbatim and objects are not resolving with ctor injection, they are still null despite doing the registers and resolves. I've since scrapped my DI code and have manual injection for now because the project is time sensitive. Hoping to get DI worked out before deadline.
I have a solution that has multiple classes that all implement the same interface
As a simple example, the Interface
public interface IMyInterface {
string GetString();
int GetInt();
...
}
The concrete classes
public class MyClassOne : IMyInterface {
public string GetString() {
....
}
public int GetInt() {
....
}
}
public class MyClassTwo : IMyInterface {
public string GetString() {
....
}
public int GetInt() {
....
}
}
Now these classes will be injected where needed into layers above them like:
public class HomeController {
private readonly IMyInterface myInterface;
public HomeController() {}
public HomeController(IMyInterface _myInterface) {
myInterface = _myInterface
}
...
}
public class OtherController {
private readonly IMyInterface myInterface;
public OtherController() {}
public OtherController(IMyInterface _myInterface) {
myInterface = _myInterface
}
...
}
Both controllers are getting injected with the same interface.
When it comes to resolving these interfaces with the proper concrete class in my IoC, how do I differentiate that HomeController needs an instance of MyClassOne and OtherController needs an instance of MyClassTwo?
How do I bind two different concrete classes to the same interface in the IoC? I don't want to create 2 different interfaces as that breaks the DRY rule and doesn't make sense anyway.
In Castle Windsor I would have 2 lines like this:
container.Register(Component.For<IMyInterface>().ImplementedBy<MyClassOne>());
container.Register(Component.For<IMyInterface>().ImplementedBy<MyClassTwo>());
This won't work because I will only ever get a copy of MyClassTwo because it's the last one registered for the interface.
Like I said, I don't get how I can do it without creating specific interfaces for each concrete, doing that breaks not only DRY rules but basic OOP as well. How do I achieve this?
Update based on Mark Polsen's answer
Here is my current IoC, where would the .Resolve statements go? I don' see anything in the Windsor docs
public class Dependency : IDependency {
private readonly WindsorContainer container = new WindsorContainer();
private IDependency() {
}
public IDependency AddWeb() {
...
container.Register(Component.For<IListItemRepository>().ImplementedBy<ProgramTypeRepository>().Named("ProgramTypeList"));
container.Register(Component.For<IListItemRepository>().ImplementedBy<IndexTypeRepository>().Named("IndexTypeList"));
return this;
}
public static IDependency Start() {
return new IDependency();
}
}
I hope you can use service overrides.
Ex.
container.Register(
Component.For<IMyService>()
.ImplementedBy<MyServiceImpl>()
.Named("myservice.default"),
Component.For<IMyService>()
.ImplementedBy<OtherServiceImpl>()
.Named("myservice.alternative"),
Component.For<ProductController>()
.ServiceOverrides(ServiceOverride.ForKey("myService").Eq("myservice.alternative"))
);
public class ProductController
{
// Will get a OtherServiceImpl for myService.
// MyServiceImpl would be given without the service override.
public ProductController(IMyService myService)
{
}
}
You should be able to accomplish it with named component registration.
container.Register(Component.For<IMyInterface>().ImplementedBy<MyClassOne>().Named("One"));
container.Register(Component.For<IMyInterface>().ImplementedBy<MyClassTwo>().Named("Two"));
and then resolve them with
kernel.Resolve<IMyInterface>("One");
or
kernel.Resolve<IMyInterface>("Two");
See: To specify a name for the component
Typically DI containers follow Register, Resolve and Release patterns. During the register phase there are two steps. The first is to specify the mapping as you are doing. The second step is to specify the rules which govern which to inject where.
This problem is very common when we try to address Cross cutting concerns using decorators. In these situations, you have multiple classes(decorators) implementing a single interface.
Briefly, we need to implement IModelInterceptorsSelector which allows you to write imperative code that decides which Interceptor to apply to which types or members.
This is elaborately described in the book Dependency Injection in .Net book by Mark Seemann. Look for chapter 9 interception or search for the above interface.
I am not an expert at this, but was searching for the exact same problem and found the ans in the above book.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Dev1
With this class
#Component
public class Sample {
#Value("${my.name}")
public static String name;
}
If I try Sample.name, it is always 'null'. So I tried this.
public class Sample {
public static String name;
#PostConstruct
public void init(){
name = privateName;
}
#Value("${my.name}")
private String privateName;
public String getPrivateName() {
return privateName;
}
public void setPrivateName(String privateName) {
this.privateName = privateName;
}
}
This code works. Sample.name is set properly. Is this good way or not? If not, is there something more good way? And how to do it?
First of all, public static non-final fields are evil. Spring does not allow injecting to such fields for a reason.
Your workaround is valid, you don't even need getter/setter, private field is enough. On the other hand try this:
#Value("${my.name}")
public void setPrivateName(String privateName) {
Sample.name = privateName;
}
(works with #Autowired/#Resource). But to give you some constructive advice: Create a second class with private field and getter instead of public static field.
Soruce of this info is this: https://www.baeldung.com/spring-inject-static-field
Spring uses dependency injection to populate the specific value when it finds the #Value annotation. However, instead of handing the value to the instance variable, it's handed to the implicit setter instead. This setter then handles the population of our NAME_STATIC value.
#RestController
//or if you want to declare some specific use of the properties file then use
//#Configuration
//#PropertySource({"classpath:application-${youeEnvironment}.properties"})
public class PropertyController {
#Value("${name}")//not necessary
private String name;//not necessary
private static String NAME_STATIC;
#Value("${name}")
public void setNameStatic(String name){
PropertyController.NAME_STATIC = name;
}
}
This is my sample code for load static variable
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Value;
import org.springframework.stereotype.Component;
#Component
public class OnelinkConfig {
public static int MODULE_CODE;
public static int DEFAULT_PAGE;
public static int DEFAULT_SIZE;
#Autowired
public void loadOnelinkConfig(#Value("${onelink.config.exception.module.code}") int code,
#Value("${onelink.config.default.page}") int page, #Value("${onelink.config.default.size}") int size) {
MODULE_CODE = code;
DEFAULT_PAGE = page;
DEFAULT_SIZE = size;
}
}
For those who want to use ApplicationContext in the main class of a Spring Boot application, you can just use the return value of SpringApplication.run.
Although workarounds may need to be implemented, one should try to avoid them in most scenarios if possible. Spring is great at handling dependency injection and treats most objects as Singletons. This means that Spring can handle the creation of objects for you, and the injection of these objects at runtime. When combining this with the fact that your Spring managed bean is likely a Singleton, the use of static methods and variables is largely unnecessary. You can simply autowire in an instance of the object you are looking for at the constructor level or variable level and reference the non-static version of the method or variable. This is ideal and behaves similarly to a static reference. Non static variables are basically static because you are only ever using one instance of the object in every part of the code and because of dependency injection you are never handling the instantiation of the object, just like with a static reference! Great! Now I'm sure there are instances where you need the work around (i.e. you aren't using dependency injection or class is not a singleton), but try to not use workarounds if possible. Also this is just my 2 cents. Someone may be able to offer 3. (:
public class InjectableClass{
#Value("${my.value}")
private String myString;
public String nonStaticMethod(){
return myString;
}
}
public class LogicClass{
private InjectableClass injectableClass;
#Autowire
public LogicClass(InjectableClass injectableClass){
this.injectableClass = injectableClass;
}
public void logicClassMethod(){
System.out.println("Hey! Here is the value I set on myString: " +
injectableClass.nonStaticMethod() + ". That was
basically like using a static method!");
}
}
We have domain objects that extend an abstract base class to support a timestamp
abstract class TimestampedObject {
private Date timestamp;
public Date getTimestamp(){return timestamp;}
public void setTimestamp(final Date timestamp){this.timestamp = timestamp;}
}
But this clutters our hierarchy.
Could we use Spring AOP introductions or Aspectj ITDs to achieve this ?
An example right out of the AspectJ in Action book (from memory not tested) would go something like this:
public interface Timestamped {
long getTimestamp();
void setTimestamp();
public static interface Impl extends Timestamped {
public static aspect Implementation {
private long Timestamped.Impl.timestamp;
public long Timestamped.Impl.getTimestamp(){ return timestamp; }
public void Timestamped.Impl.setTimestamp(long in) { timestamp = in; }
}
}
//and then your classes would use it like this:
public class SomeClass implements Timestamped.Impl {
private void someFunc() {
setTimestamp(12);
long t = getTimestamp();
}
}
Not sure if the book had it that way or not but I usually create a separate Impl interface (as shown above) that just extends the main one so that some of my classes can implement timestamping differently without acquiring the ITD implementation. Like so :
public class SomeOtherClass implements Timestamped {
private long myOwnPreciousTimestamp;
public long getTimestamp() {
//Oh! I don't know should I give it to you?!
//I know, I will only give you a half of my timestamp
return myOwnPreciousTimestamp/2;
}
//etc.....
}
Yes, this is exactly what ITDs are for.
Does anyone know if it's possible to use Ninject to resolve any unresolved abstract dependencies outside of the instantiation process? I've just been looking into constructor injection vs property/method/field injection, but it looks to me as though Ninject is still expecting to be the creator of the type using the IKernel.Get<>() method.
Basically, we're using MVC3 to build our product, and we've come up against a situation where we want the default ModelBinder to map form values to an instance of the object, and then be able to call a method on the submitted ViewModel that is dependent on an abstract interface e.g.
public class InviteFriend {
[Required]
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public void Execute() {
var user = IUserRepository.GetUser(this.EmailAddress);
if (user == null) {
IUserRepository.SaveInvite(this.EmailAddress);
}
MailMessage toSend = new MailMessage(); // Obviously some logic to prepare the body, subject and other mail properties
SmtpClient.Send(toSend);
}
}
where the controller action would receive InviteFriend as the method argument. We want Ninject to be able to resolve that IUserRepository dependency, but I can't quite work out how to since the object itself is instantiated by the MVC ModelBinder rather than Ninject IKernel.Get<>().
Maybe the solution is a Ninject-based ModelBinder, or does that seem a really bad idea?
EDIT TO ADD: After the comments below, I realise that my hastily mocked-up code sample doesn't really reflect what we're facing. I've updated the code sample to reflect that the logic for InviteFriend.Execute() is more complex than just calling a method on one repository. Potentially, this is logic representing a discrete task that could co-ordinate interactions between multiple different domain objects and multiple repositories. The repositories are defined abstractly, and ideally would be resolved by Ninject.
I think what you are looking for is somewhat the following scenario:
public class InviteFriend {
[Required]
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
// More information
}
public interface ICommand {
void Execute();
}
public class InviteFriendCommand : ICommand
{
public InviteFriend(InviteFriend info, IUserRepository userRepo, IMailSender mailSender) {
this.inviteFriend = info;
this.userRepo = userRepo;
this.mailSender = mailSender;
}
public void Execute() {
var user = this.userRepo.GetUser(this.inviteFriend.EmailAddress);
if (user == null) {
this.userRepo.SaveInvite(this.inviteFriend.EmailAddress);
}
MailMessage toSend = new MailMessage(); // Obviously some logic to prepare the body, subject and other mail properties
this.mailSender.Send(toSend);
}
}
public interface ICommandFactory {
ICommand CreateInviteFriendCommand(InviteFriend info);
}
public class CommandFactory {
public CommandFactory(IResolutionRoot resolutionRoot) {
this.resolutionRoot = resolutionRoot;
}
ICommand CreateInviteFriendCommand(InviteFriend info) {
this.resolutionRoot.Get<InviteFriendCommand>(new ConstructorArgument("info", info));
}
}
public class YourController {
// Somewhere
var command = this.commandFactory.CreateInviteFriendCommand(info);
command.Execute();
}
public class YourModule : NinjectModule {
override Load() {
Bind<IUserRepository>().To<UserRepo>().InRequestScope();
Bind<ICommandFactory>().To<CommandFactory>().InRequestScope();
Bind<InviteFriendCommand>().ToSelf().InRequestScope();
}
}
Forgive me when you need to tweak it a bit. I hacked it together with my out of brain compiler ;)
Thank you for all your comments, but I've subsequently found the information I was looking for.
The answer is that it is possible to inject dependencies post-instantiation with Ninject. The solution is as follows:
public class InviteFriend {
[Inject]
public IUserRepository UserRepo { get; set; }
[Required]
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public void Execute() {
var user = UserRepo.GetUser(this.EmailAddress);
if (user == null) {
UserRepo.SaveInvite(this.EmailAddress);
}
MailMessage toSend = new MailMessage(); // Obviously some logic to prepare the body, subject and other mail properties
SmtpClient.Send(toSend);
}
}
With client code then using the Ninject kernel as follows:
IKernel container = new StandardKernel(new ModuleWithMyBindings());
container.Inject(instanceOfInviteFriend);
The code itself is a bit more sophisticated than that i.e. I'm not instantiating a new IKernel each time I need it.
I realise that this is architecturally less pure than some of the suggestions put forward in comments, but in the spirit of YAGNI, this is good enough for now and we can always refactor later on with some of the good suggestions in Daniel's answer. However, this was a question about the capabilities of Ninject rather than an architectural review question, and this is what I consider the answer to my own question :)