I have code like this.
#org.springframework.stereotype.Component("studentInfo")
#org.springframework.context.annotation.Profile("studentInfo")
public class CustomStudentInfo{
As you can see i have the component name and the same profile i mean i just want to set this class as a bean only when the profile is set and fact this is working but is kind annoying to type this on 2 lines my question is can i have this on a custom annotation i mean a annotation that help me just to write.
#CustomSpringAnnotation("studentInfo")
public class CustomStudentInfo{
Thanks and sorry if the question is plain.
You can "incorporate" the spring annotations into a custom one like (source/proof: SpringBootApplicaiton source code):
package my.package.annotations;
#org.springframework.stereotype.Component("studentInfo") // needs "constant expression" here
#org.springframework.context.annotation.Profile("studentInfo") // .. and here!
public #interface MyCustomSpringAnnotation { ...
// but here you have a problem,
// since you cannot pass (at least not to the above annotations,
// ... but maybe dynamically *hack* into the spring context):
String value() default ""; //?
}
...then you could use it like:
#MyCustomSpringAnnotation
public class CustomStudentInfo { // ...
but with the fixed "studentInfo" it is no improvement (but the contrary).
The probably "most spring-like" and best solution (no stress with "too many annotations") is: To consume "studentInfo" from a "visible" (static) final variable (probably best in the affected class):
#org.springframework.stereotype.Component(CustomStudentInfo.PROFILE_NAME)
#org.springframework.context.annotation.Profile(CustomStudentInfo.PROFILE_NAME)
public class CustomStudentInfo {
public static final String PROFILE_NAME = "studentInfo";
// ...
Related
I am having two implementations of my component.
public interface MyComponent {
}
imple1
#Component("impCompf")
#Lazy
#RequestScope
public class ImpComp1 implements MyComponent {
}
imple2
#Component("impComps")
#Lazy
#RequestScope
public class ImpComp2 implements MyComponent {
}
What I did so far is to create two conditions like so:
imple1
public class FirstCondition implements Condition {
#Override
public boolean matches(ConditionContext arg0, AnnotatedTypeMetadata arg1) {
return staticVariable.contains("impCompf");
}
}
Same goes for imple2
and define a configuration class
#Configuration
public class MyConfiguration {
#Bean
#Conditional(FirstCondition .class)
#Primary
public MyComponent getComp1() {
return new ImpComp1();
}
public static String staticVariable= "impCompf";
and in My main controller:
#RequestMapping(value="api/{co}", method=RequestMethod.POST)
public ResponseEntity<Modelx> postSe(#PathVariable("co") String co) {
if(co.contains("impCompf"))
staticVariable = "impCompf";
else (co.contains("impComps"))
staticVariable = "impComps";
What I want: for every http request I want to load proper implementation
But however what I am getting is the implementation defined first in the static variable.
If is there another elegant and better way, i'd like to know about it.
I think there is some confusion here about the purpose of the conditions. These aren't being used at the time your requests arrive to autowire the candidate bean into your controller. These are being used when the application is started to configure the application context based on the environment and classpath etc...
There is no need for the conditional classes that you have created. This is defining the configuration of the beans when the context starts and not on a per request basis at runtime.
The use of the static variable is also problematic is a scenario with one or more concurrent requests or in a case where multiple threads may observe different values unless some other mechanism in the java memory model is being used (such as volatile or establishing a happens before relationship, e.g. with sychnronized)
There are a number of ways to do what you appear to be trying to achieve. Since ultimately, you appear to be using a path parameter supplied by a client to determine which service you want to invoke you could use a classic factory pattern to return the correct interface implementation based on the string input programmatically.
Alternatively you could create two distinct controller methods which are distinguished by a query parameter or endpoint name or path match etc. You could then have the appropriate service injected by a qualified bean name
Although perhaps generally recommended, you could also inject an application context instance and search the it looking for the relevant bean by name or class: https://brunozambiazi.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/getting-spring-beans-programmatically/ - although This is more cumbersome and you'd need to handle things like org.springframework.beans.factory.NoSuchBeanDefinitionException or casting in some cases - best avoided in favour of one of the other methods.
I have a REST API built with Spring Boot / Spring MVC, using the implicit JSON serialization via Jackson.
Now, just before the implicit serialization, I would like to "inject" some UI texts from message resources into the objects that Jackson converts into JSON. Is there some neat, simple way to do this?
As a much simplified example, below I'd like to set Section title to a user-visible value, based purely based on its SectionType.
(Sure, I could hardcode the UI texts in SectionType, but I'd rather keep them separate, in resource files, because it's cleaner, and they might be localised at some point. And I can't autowire MessageSource in the entities / model objects which are not Spring-managed.)
#Entity
public class Entry {
// persistent fields omitted
#JsonProperty
public List<Sections> getSections() {
// Sections created on-the-fly, based on persistent data
}
}
public class Section {
public SectionType type;
public String title; // user-readable text whose value only depends on type
}
public enum SectionType {
MAIN,
FOO,
BAR;
public String getUiTextKey() {
return String.format("section.%s", name());
}
}
Somewhere in a #RestController:
#RequestMapping(value = "/entry/{id}", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public Entry entry(#PathVariable("id") Long id) {
return service.findEntry(id);
}
UI texts that I'd like to keep separate from code (messages_en.properties):
section.MAIN=Main Section
section.FOO=Proper UI text for the FOO section
section.BAR=This might get localised one day, you know
And what I'd like to do in a Spring-managed service/bean somewhere (using Messages, a very simple helper wrapping a MessageSource):
section.title = messages.get(section.type.getUiTextKey())
Note that if I call entry.getSections() and set the title for each, it will not affect the JSON output, since the Sections are generated on the fly in getSections().
Do I have to go all the way to custom deseriazation, or is there a simpler way to hook into the model objects just before they get serialized by Jackson?
Sorry if the question is unclear; I can try to clarify if needed.
As I said in the comment you can write an Aspect around every controller method that returns Section.
I wrote a simple example. You have to modify it with the message source.
Controller:
#RestController
#RequestMapping("/home")
public class HomeController {
#RequestMapping("/index")
public Person index(){
Person person = new Person();
person.setName("evgeni");
return person;
}
}
Aspect
#Aspect
#Component
public class MyAspect {
#Around("execution(public Person com.example..*Controller.*(..))")//you can play with the pointcut here
public Object addSectionMessage(ProceedingJoinPoint pjp) throws Throwable {
Object retVal = pjp.proceed();
Person p = (Person) retVal; // here cast to your class(Section) instead of Person
p.setAge(26);//modify the object as you wish and return it
return p;
}
}
Since the aspect is also a #Component you can #Autowire in it.
As Bloch states in Item 3 ("Enforce the singleton property with a private constructor or an enum type") of Effective Java 2nd Edition, a single-element enum type is the best way to implement a singleton. Unfortunately the old private constructor pattern is still very widespread and entrenched, to the point that many developers don't understand what I'm doing when I create enum singletons.
A simple // Enum Singleton comment above the class declaration helps, but it still leaves open the possibility that another programmer could come along later and add a second constant to the enum, breaking the singleton property. For all the problems that the private constructor approach has, in my opinion it is somewhat more self-documenting than an enum singleton.
I think what I need is an annotation which both states that the enum type is a singleton and ensures at compile-time that only one constant is ever added to the enum. Something like this:
#EnumSingleton // Annotation complains if > 1 enum element on EnumSingleton
public enum EnumSingleton {
INSTANCE;
}
Has anyone run across such an annotation for standard Java in public libraries anywhere? Or is what I'm asking for impossible under Java's current annotation system?
UPDATE
One workaround I'm using, at least until I decide to actually bother with rolling my own annotations, is to put #SuppressWarnings("UnusedDeclaration") directly in front of the INSTANCE field. It does a decent job of making the code look distinct from a straightforward enum type.
You can use something like this -
public class SingletonClass {
private SingletonClass() {
// block external instantiation
}
public static enum SingletonFactory {
INSTANCE {
public SingletonClass getInstance() {
return instance;
}
};
private static SingletonClass instance = new SingletonClass();
private SingletonFactory() {
}
public abstract SingletonClass getInstance();
}
}
And you can access in some other class as -
SingletonClass.SingletonFactory.INSTANCE.getInstance();
I'm not aware of such an annotation in public java libraries, but you can define yourself such a compile time annotation to be used for your projects. Of course, you need to write an annotation processor for it and invoke somehow APT (with ant or maven) to check your #EnumSingleton annoted enums at compile time for the intended structure.
Here is a resource on how to write and use compile time annotations.
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
I'm relatively new to Spring and I've got myself dug in a hole. I'm trying to model motor cars. Each model has it's own builder object, and I have a BuilderFactory that returns the correct builder based upon user selection from a web-app.
So I'm looking for suggestions on how to approach this problem where I need to create a number of individual vehicles, but I don't know what type of vehicle I'm going to need until run-time, and each vehicle needs to be unique to the user.
What I've got at the moment is shown below. The problem I have at the moment is that because the individual builders are singletons so are the individual vehicles. I need them
to be prototypes. I know it all looks pretty horrible so I'm sure there must be a better way of doing this.
The top level from the web-app looks like;
Vehicle vehicle = vehicleBuilderFactory.getBuilder(platform).build();
My vehicleBuilderFactory looks like this;
#Service
public class VehicleBuilderFactory {
#Autowired
Discovery3Builder discovery3Builder;
#Autowired
Discovery4Builder discovery4Builder;
// Lots of #Autowired statements here.
#Autowired
FreeLander2010Builder freeLander2010Builder;
public VehicleBuilder getBuilder(Platform platform) {
switch (platform.getId()) {
case 1: return discovery3Builder;
case 2: return discovery4Builder;
// Lots of case statements here
case 44: return freeLander2010Builder;
default: return null;
}
}
}
which itself looks pretty horrible. Each individual builder looks like;
#Service
public class DefenderBuilder implements VehicleBuilder {
#Autowired
Defender defender;
// Loads of Defender specific setters ommitted
#Override
public Vehicle build() {
return defender;
}
}
and finally the individual vehicle
#Service
#Scope("prototype")
public class Defender extends Vehicle {
}
The main problem now, is that because the builders are singletons, so are the vehicles, and
I need them to be prototypes, because User A's Defender is different to user B's Defender.
You can use Spring's ObjectFactory to have it service up prototype scoped beans from a singleton scoped bean. The usage is pretty straightforward:
#Component
class DefenderBuilder implement VechicleBuilder {
#Autowired
ObjectFactory<Defender> defenderFactory;
Defender build() {
return defenderFactory.getObject()
}
}
#Component
#Scope("prototype")
class Defender {
}
This returns a new Defender on each call to defenderFactory.getObject()
Without reading too much into the detail you say you want to produce Prototype beans from a singleton possibly with a look up in the IoC container.
Section 3.4.6.1 Lookup method injection of the Spring documentation describes how this can be done without losing the Inversion of Control i.e. without your beans knowing about the bean store.
I have made use of the ServiceLocatorFactoryBean to solve a similar problem before. The class level Javadoc is excellent and contains some clear examples.
Two things:
1) You can use proxy in order to hold narrower scope from wider scope(e.g prototype from singleton)
All you need is to define the prototype component with the relevant scope and proxyMode
You can read about scoped proxy here.
2) Another thing that I have noticed is that you plan to use multiple autowired annotation.
note that you can use autowire on a list of interface and it will autowire all components that implements this interface as discussed here.
Moreover you can add a platform id to the VehicleBuilder interface and then generate a map in the constructor e.g:
Map<Integer, VehicleBuilder> vehicleBuilders;
#Autowired
public VehicleBuilderFactory(List<VehicleBuilder> vehicleBuilders) {
this.vehicleBuilders = vehicleBuilders.stream()
.collect(Collectors(x -> x.getPlatformId(), x -> x));
}
in that way you can avoid the switch case.