In the Gradle documentation when you use a configurations block in your build.gradle file the closure that is passed delegates to a ConfigurationContainer object. A truncated form of the example usage is given below:
configurations {
//adding a configuration:
myConfiguration
}
I am used to the calls inside the closure being method calls on the delegated to object, but here myConfiguration is just a single word and I know that in Groovy a method with no parameters must have parentheses so this can't be a method call. Somehow by putting this single word in which looks to me like it should be invalid Groovy a new configuration of myConfiguration is added to the delegated to ConfigurationContainer.
How is this working?
Project.configurations(Closure) calls ConfigurationContainer.configure(Closure), which creates and adds named items to container, as they declared in closure. Because ConfigurationContainer extends NamedDomainObjectContainer, every item added to It should have name. In provided code sample only name is declared, so myConfiguration item is created and added, with default field values. In case one needs to configure item (change its properties), then configuration would look as follows:
configurations {
myConfiguration {
transitive = false
}
}
More info/insights https://gist.github.com/tlberglund/3132622.
Related
I have multiple yml files in different folders. All the files in the folder share the same property structure which I mapped with a java bean.
At runtime, with a factory, I want to get the right bean populated with the values of the specific file chosen at runtime. How do I do that?
Thanks
The #ConfigurationProperties annotation or the mechanism behind it is built to be used for configuration of an application at startup, not loading data at runtime.
I'm sure you could somehow start mini spring environments at runtime just to read this data using different spring profiles (this is e.g. how spring-cloud-configserver loads properties) but this seems not right and there are better alternatives.
E.g., if you need that data to be loaded at runtime, you can use jackson's yamlfactory for that, with that you can read your data in 3-4 statements. A good example is here: https://www.baeldung.com/jackson-yaml.
Consider a Bean like this: (Pseudo code, just to explain)
class MyConfigBean {
private Properties currentProperties;
private Map<String, Properties> allPropertiesMap;
void loadAllProperties() { ... }
void switchProperties(String name) {
this.currentProperties = this.allPropertiesMap.get(name);
}
String getProperty(String key) {
return this.currentProperties.get(key);
}
}
You can load all of the Yaml files into a Map in your bean. The Map's key could be the "name" of the properties file and the value would be the Properties object.
A switchProperties(String name) method will "select" the properties file you wish to work with. Using the name, you will get the appropriate Properties object from the Map and assign it to the "currentProperties" object.
This way, each time you get a property by key, it will be fetched from the "currentProperties" according to what you "switched" for.
Important - You'll have to decide what is the default properties after you load all of them.
This is the code that I have:
#Component
#Configuration
#PropertySource("application.properties")
public class Program {
#Value("${app.title}")
private String appTitle;
public Program() {
System.out.println(appTitle);
}
}
The application.properties has
app.title=The Program
The output is null insteaf of The Program.
So, what am I missing? I have tried several examples; none worked.
Since appTitle is an autowired field, it is not set until after the object is initially constructed. This is why the value is still null in your example. The bean construction process in this scenario is as follows:
The Program constructor is called, creating a new Program instance
The appTitle field is set on the newly constructed bean to ${app.title}
The ideal fix for this depends on your goals. If you truly need the value within the constructor, you can pass it in as an autowired constructor parameter. The value will then be available within the constructor:
#Component
#Configuration
#PropertySource("application.properties")
public class Program {
public Program(#Value("${app.title}") appTitle) {
System.out.println(appTitle);
}
}
If you don't need it in the constructor itself, but need it for the proper initialization of the bean, you could alternatively use the #javax.annotation.PostConstruct annotation to make use of it after the object's construction but before it is made available for use elsewhere:
#Component
#Configuration
#PropertySource("application.properties")
public class Program {
#Value("${app.title}")
private String appTitle;
#PostConstruct
public void printAppTitle() {
System.out.println(appTitle);
}
}
Finally, if you don't need the value at construction time, but need it during the life of the bean, what you have will work; it just won't be available within the body of the constructor itself:
#Component
#Configuration
#PropertySource("application.properties")
public class Program {
#Value("${app.title}")
private String appTitle;
}
Nothing wrong, just don't do it in a constructor...
Other answers on this question are written assuming the goal is creating a Spring-managed bean that uses the given property in its creation. However, based on your comments in another answer, it looks like the question you want answered is how to access an externalized property (one provided by #Value) within a no-argument constructor. This is based on your expectation that a Java inversion of control (IoC) container such as Spring should allow accessing externalized properties (and presumably other dependencies) within a no-argument constructor. That being the case, this answer will address the specific question of accessing the property within a no-argument constructor.
While there are certainly ways this goal could be achieved, none of them would be idiomatic usage of the Spring framework. As you discovered, autowired fields (i.e. fields initialized using setter injection) cannot be accessed within the constructor.
There are two parts to explaining why this is. First, why does it work the way it does, programmatically? Second, why was it designed the way it was?
The setter-based dependency injection section of the Spring docs addresses the first question:
Setter-based DI is accomplished by the container calling setter methods on your beans after invoking a no-argument constructor or a no-argument static factory method to instantiate your bean.
In this case, it means that first the object is created using the no-argument constructor. Second, once the object is constructed, the appTitle is initialized on the constructed bean. Since the field isn't initialized until after the object is constructed, it will have its default value of null within the constructor.
The second question is why Spring is designed this way, rather than somehow having access to the property within the constructor. The constructor-based or setter-based DI? sidebar within the Spring documentation makes it clear that constructor arguments are in fact the idiomatic approach when dealing with mandatory dependencies in general.
Since you can mix constructor-based and setter-based DI, it is a good rule of thumb to use constructors for mandatory dependencies and setter methods or configuration methods for optional dependencies. [...]
The Spring team generally advocates constructor injection, as it lets you implement application components as immutable objects and ensures that required dependencies are not null. Furthermore, constructor-injected components are always returned to the client (calling) code in a fully initialized state. [...]
Setter injection should primarily only be used for optional dependencies that can be assigned reasonable default values within the class. [...]
A property needed to construct the object certainly would be categorized as a mandatory dependency. Therefore, idiomatic Spring usage would be to pass in this required value in the constructor.
So in summary, trying to access an application property within a no-argument constructor is not supported by the Spring framework, and in fact runs contrary to the recommended use of the framework.
Java configuration allows us to manage bean creation within a configuration file. Annotated #Component, #Service classes used with component scanning does the same. However, I'm concerned about using these two mechanisms at the same time.
Should Java configuration and annotated component scans be avoided in the same project? I ask because the result is unclear in the following scenario:
#Configuration
public class MyConfig {
#Bean
public Foo foo() {
return new Foo(500);
}
}
...
#Component
public class Foo {
private int value;
public Foo() {
}
public Foo(int value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
...
public class Consumer {
#Autowired
Foo foo;
...
}
So, in the above situation, will the Consumer get a Foo instance with a 500 value or 0 value? I've tested locally and it appears that the Java configured Foo (with value 500) is created consistently. However, I'm concerned that my testing isn't thorough enough to be conclusive.
What is the real answer? Using both Java config and component scanning on #Component beans of the same type seems like a bad thing.
I think your concern is more like raised by the following use case:
You have a custom spring-starter-library that have its own #Configuration classes and #Bean definitions, BUT if you have #Component/#Service in this library, you will need to explicitly #ComponentScan these packages from your service, since the default #ComponentScan (see #SpringBootApplication) will perform component scanning from the main class, to all sub-packages of your app, BUT not the packages inside the external library. For that purpose, you only need to have #Bean definitions in your external library, and to inject these external configurations via #EnableSomething annotation used on your app's main class (using #Import(YourConfigurationAnnotatedClass.class) OR via using spring.factories in case you always need the external configuration to be used/injected.
Of course, you CAN have #Components in this library, but the explicit usage of #ComponentScan annotation may lead to unintended behaviour in some cases, so I would recommend to avoid that.
So, to answer your question -> You can have both approaches of defining beans, only if they're inside your app, but bean definitions outside your app (e.g. library) should be explicitly defined with #Bean inside a #Configuration class.
It is perfectly valid to have Java configuration and annotated component scans in the same project because they server different purposes.
#Component (#Service,#Repository etc) are used to auto-detect and auto-configure beans.
#Bean annotation is used to explicitly declare a single bean, instead of letting Spring do it automatically.
You can do the following with #Bean. But, this is not possible with #Component
#Bean
public MyService myService(boolean someCondition) {
if(someCondition) {
return new MyServiceImpl1();
}else{
return new MyServiceImpl2();
}
}
Haven't really faced a situation where both Java config and component scanning on the bean of the same type were required.
As per the spring documentation,
To declare a bean, simply annotate a method with the #Bean annotation.
When JavaConfig encounters such a method, it will execute that method
and register the return value as a bean within a BeanFactory. By
default, the bean name will be the same as the method name
So, As per this, it is returning the correct Foo (with value 500).
In general, there is nothing wrong with component scanning and explicit bean definitions in the same application context. I tend to use component scanning where possible, and create the few beans that need more setup with #Bean methods.
There is no upside to include classes in the component scan when you create beans of their type explicitly. Component scanning can easily be targeted at certain classes and packages. If you design your packages accordingly, you can component scan only the packages without "special" bean classes (or else use more advanced filters on scanning).
In a quick look I didn't find any clear information about bean definition precedence in such a case. Typically there is a deterministic and fairly stable order in which these are processed, but if it is not documented it maybe could change in some future Spring version.
UPDATE: I just published this question also here, I might have done a better work phrasing it there.
How can I explicitly define an order in which Spring's out-of-the-box process of reading properties out of an available-in-classpath application.yml will take place BEFORE my #Configuration annotated class which reads configuration data from zookeeper and places them as system properties which are later easily read and injected into members using #Value?
I have a #Configuration class, which defines a creation of a #Bean, in a which configuration data from zookeeper is read and placed as system properties, in a way that they can easily be read and injected into members using #Value.
#Profile("prod")
#Configuration
public class ZookeeperConfigurationReader {
#Value("${zookeeper.url}")
static String zkUrl;
#Bean
public static PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer zkPropertySourcesPlaceHolderConfigurer() {
PropertySourcesConfigurerAdapter propertiesAdapter = new PropertySourcesConfigurerAdapter();
new ConfigurationBuilder().populateAdapterWithDataFromZk(propertiesAdapter);
return propertiesAdapter.getConfigurer();
}
public void populateAdapterWithDataFromZk(ConfigurerAdapter ca) {
...
}
}
Right now I pass the zookeeper.url into the executed program using a -Dzookeeper.url which is added to the execution line. Right now I read it by calling directly System.getProperty("zookeeper.url").
Since I'm using Spring-Boot application, I also have a application.yml configuration file.
I would like to be able to set the zookeeper.url in the application.yml, and keep my execution line clean as possible from explicit properties.
The mission turns out to be harder than I thought.
As you can see in the above code sniplet of ZookeeperConfigurationReader, I'm trying to inject that value using #Value("${zookeeper.url}") into a member in the class which performs the actual read of data from zookeeper, but at the time the code that needs that value accesses it, it is still null. The reason for that is that in spring life cycle wise, I'm still in the phase of "configuration" as I'm a #Configuration annotated class myself, and the spring's code which reads the application.yml data and places them as system properties, hasn't been executed yet.
So bottom line, what I'm looking for is a way to control the order and tell spring to first read application.yml into system properties, and then load ZookeeperConfigurationReader class.
You can try to use Spring Cloud Zookeeper. I posted a brief example of use here
I am following below article and repository pattern.
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef-using-mvc/implementing-the-repository-and-unit-of-work-patterns-in-an-asp-net-mvc-application
I am confused at one point, optional contructor defined in controller.
public StudentController(IStudentRepository studentRepository)
{
this.studentRepository = studentRepository;
}
Even if, I remove that - code works well. what is use of this constructor. As we are assing new context object in main default constructor.
The optional ctor doesn't create a new context, while the optional one does. The context is set in the StudentRepository's ctor.
This constructor allows you to pass in a different implementation of the studentRepository. Note that it accepts an interface, not a concrete implementation of the repository. This can be useful for unit testing where you can pass in a fake repository that does not need to access a database. You can also use this constructor with dependency injection.