I don't think spring does use clone in making a proto, it will be cheating if they use reflection API and create a copy object and call it a clone/proto, Springs proto never satisfies any condition of prototype pattern.
Yes, you are right. The #Scope("prototype") annotation in Spring doesn't implement the prototype design pattern by the GoF. While the prototype design pattern creates new objects by cloning a given prototype (see here), Spring's #Scope("prototype") will not do that. It will create a new object every time by Spring's default object creation mechanism (which is reflection I guess). If you look at Spring's documentation, it evens says that #Scope("prototype") is a replacement for Java's new operator:
In some respects, the Spring container’s role in regard to a
prototype-scoped bean is a replacement for the Java new operator.
(See here)
Related
I am using Spring AOP to log the DB execution time, but it is applying to the entire method execution time.
#Target(ElementType.METHOD)
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public #interface TrackExecutionTime {
}
Is there any possibility that we can use this #TrackExecutionTime not in the method level but inside a method just above some statement like below -
#TrackExecutionTime
List<Release> releaseList = releaseRepo.findByProductName(productName.toUpperCase());
that way I can able to get only the DB execution time not only the entire method execution time, as my method contains other business logic too which also including if we use the AOP annotation at the method level.
Your question is not AOP-specific, because annotations are a Java language feature. The answer is: Annotations on arbitrary lines of code are not part of the Java language concept, which for you means you also cannot use them for AOP purposes. This is simply a Java limitation. Neither Spring AOP nor native AspectJ can support a feature which does not exist in Java to begin with.
Friendly suggestion: Please learn more about Java first, then get acquainted with some basic software design and clean code principles. Finally, you shall be able to achieve what you want, albeit in a different way from what you just dreamed up here.
Spring AOP default configuration uses proxies to execute the aspect hence only methods can be annotated.
A bit of a detour on the proxies. A proxy wraps a target method so when you call a method elsewhere Spring makes sure to invoke the method on the proxy and that invocation then contains the aspect code which gets executed before, after, around the call itself (depending on the aspect). There can be several proxies wrapping a single class.
Then an option is to add your aspect annotation to the repository method.
If we need to track the execution time only for subset of calls to the method (which sounds a bit strange a requirement) then we can add a wrapper method - say make a Spring-managed Metrics class with a said time tracking method that accepts a lambda and is annotated with the #TrackExecutionTime. The original call would then be something like
metrics.executeTimed(() -> releaseRepo.findByProductName(productName.toUpperCase()));
In a Spring Boot Web Application layout, I have defined a Service Interface named ApplicationUserService. An implementation called ApplicationUserServiceImpl implements all the methods present in ApplicationUserService.
Now, I have a Controller called ApplicationUserController that calls all the methods of ApplicationUserServiceImpl under different #GetMapping annotations.
As suggested by my instructor, I have defined a Dependency Injection as follows:
public class ApplicationUserController {
private final ApplicationUserService applicationUserService; //This variable will work as an object now.
public ApplicationUserController(ApplicationUserService applicationUserService) {
this.applicationUserService = applicationUserService;
}
#GetMapping
//REST OF THE CODE
}
I am new to Spring Boot and I tried understanding Dependency Injection in plain English and I understood how it works. I understood that the basic idea is to separate the dependency from the usage. But I am totally confused about how this works in my case.
My Questions:
Here ApplicationUserService is an Interface and it's implementation has various methods defined. In the code above, applicationUserService now has access to every method from ApplicationUserServiceImpl. How did that happen?
I want to know how the Object creation works here.
Could you tell me the difference between not using DI and using DI in this case?
Answers
The interface layer is used for abstraction of the code it will be really helpfull when you want to provide different implementations for it. When you create a instance you are simply creating a ApplicationUserServiceImpl and assigning it into a reference variable of ApplicationUserService this concept is called upcasting. Even though you have created the object of child class/implementation class you can only access the property or methods defined in parent class/interface class. Please refer this for more info
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62599259/purpose-of-service-interface-class-in-spring-boot#:~:text=There%20are%20various%20reasons%20why,you%20can%20create%20test%20stubs.
in this example when a applicationusercontroller object is created. The spring engine(or ioc container) will create a object of ApplicationUserServiceImpl (since there is a single implementation of the interface ) and returns to controller object as a constructor orgument which you assign to the refrence variable also refer the concept called IOC(Invertion of control)
as explained in the previous answer the spring will take care of object creation (object lifecycle)rather than you explsitly doing it. it will make the objects loosely coupled. In this the controll of creating the instances is with spring .
The non DI way of doing this is
private ApplicationUserService applicationUserService = new ApplicationUserServiceImpl()
Hope I have answered your questions
this analogy may make you understand better consider an example, wherein you have the ability to cook. According to the IoC principle(principal which is the basis of DI), you can invert the control, so instead of you cooking food, you can just directly order from outside, wherein you receive food at your doorstep. Thus the process of food delivered to you at your doorstep is called the Inversion of Control.
You do not have to cook yourself, instead, you can order the food and let a delivery executive, deliver the food for you. In this way, you do not have to take care of the additional responsibilities and just focus on the main work.
Now, that you know the principle behind Dependency Injection, let me take you through the types of Dependency Injection
I am trying to understand the idea of spring beans and why I should use them. If I create a bean and use it to print something out like this.
ApplicationContext context = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("spring.xml");
Account acc = (Account)context.getBean("account");
acc.printAccName();
Why not just create an object of that class like this
Account acc2 = new Account();
acc.printAccName();
I have been watching some video's and did some reading but I did not get an answer why it is better.
Usually what you inject is business logic or services which typically is what changes in a system.
You are trying to inject a domain object Account these objects are not subject to change so it is okay to create the object via new. Perhaps, this is what it is confusing you.
The idea, is to let the container handle the instantiation of your logic or services that change regularly so you can swap them easily without having to open the client classes, because these might be already in production, tested and a developer could potentially introduce new bugs and break things. One way to avoid this is to follow a principle called Open-Closed principle. Then you code to abstractions so you can easily inject concrete implementations via dependency injection.
Imagine the following escenario. For a bookstore, you have different implementations of how to save a book into a database e.g. using JDBC BookServiceJDBCImpl, or using an ORM BookServiceHibernateImpl etc..
// Create & get the Spring container, where you configure your implementations
// e.g. bookServiceJDBC, or bookServiceHibernate
ApplicationContext container = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("spring-config.xml");
// the container loads the appropriate bean say bookServiceHibernate
BookService bookService = (BookService) container.getBean("bookService");
//Create a new book this is a domain object usually you use new
Book newBook = new Book("1234", "Spring in Action","Rod Johnson");
//Now save the book using the implementation defined in the
//container
bookService.registerNewBook(newBook);
This is how part of the container file may look like, in here you define the concrete implementation:
<bean id="bookService" class="service.BookServiceHibernateImpl"/>
By letting the container handle this you could inject different implementations without having to touch the client class or even knowing which implementation will be passed.
Check this Dependency Injection blog post it explains a way to achieve it using Spring.
Bare in mind that in Spring you can use java annotations or xml, and that there are different ways to inject dependencies e.g. via get/set, constructors etc this is just an illustrative example of the general DI concept. The design is up to the developer.
Another reason why you would use beans is to aid testing.
We also extract the RestTemplate into a #Bean to make it easier to
test (it can be mocked more easily that way). Link
I would like to add extra attribute to the internal representation of beans in Spring. Is it possible? What mechanism should be applied if any?
My goal is to define my own beans for my framework. I can do it from scratch or reuse Spring mechanisms.
You could have a look at the documentation Container Extension Points.
To achieve customization you can create a:
BeanPostProcessor bean which operates on a bean instance. For example this allows to create a custom bean registry, to proxify...
BeanFactoryPostProcessor which can operate on bean metadata. This allows for overriding or adding properties even to eager-initializing beans, modifying the class...
BeanDefinitionRegistryPostProcessor which can operate right after the registry initialization. This allows to create, remove or update beans definitions.
For example you can create a new BeanDefinitionRegistryPostProcessor which will register (or modify) beans using a custom implementation of BeanDefinition which will contain custom attribute based on for example your owns annotation.
Could you elaborate a bit what are you trying to achieve with your framework?
Merci beaucoup, Nicolas :)
I will study both your answer and the documentation you provided. I have already found the *Postprocessors you mentioned but I was not sure if this is the right place and what is the nature of their customizations (subclassing or something different) and what are the consequences. My problem is not as simple as I told (not just adding an attribute) - the extended Spring bean should be used also in cooperation to Spring+AspectJ (not SpringAOP), especially with declare-parents construct. I would like to be able to create proxies for the redefined beans as well. I will let you know what are the results of my investigation and may be I will ask some questions.
And the answer to all of you:
My framework is dedicated to defining graph modeling languages (meta-models) at run-time (being far extension of OMG standards) and I am looking for solutions of limits introduced by current object representation in JVM, which promotes behaviour over structure. This is one of several approaches, but the most prospective for me due to the relatively small effort.
I would like to know, whether this is a valid practice to use "new" in spring to create a Object?
You can either use xml->bean to create a object using xml file or use annotations to create a object.
This question arises when I am working on a project and where I want to create a object of a property class(which contains properties and setter/getter method of those properties).
I am able to create a object using new and its working fine but if spring has capability to create and manage object lifecycle then which way I need to go create a object and why?
I think the confusion may arise because of the (over)usage of spring as DI mechanism. Spring is a framework providing many services. Bean or dependency injection is just on of those.
I would say that for POJOs which have just setter and getters without much logic in them you can safely create objects using new keyword. For example, in case of value objects and data classes which do not have much configuration or life cycle events to worry about, go ahead and crate those using new keyword. If you repetitively create these objects and have fields which are not changing often, then I would use spring because it will lessen some of the repetitive code and object creation can be considered externalized or separated from your object usage.
Classes instantiated using spring bean definition xml/annotations are basically 'Spring-Managed' beans which mostly means that their life cycle, scope, etc are managed by spring. Spring manages objects which are beans, which may have some life cycle methods and APIs. These beans are dependencies for the classes in which the are set. The parent objects call some API of these dependencies to fulfil some business cases.
Hope this helps.
The Dependency Injection concept in spring is more useful when we need to construct an object that depends upon many objects, because it saves you time and effort for constructing as well as instantiating dependent objects.
In your case , Since it's a POJO class with only setters and getters , I think it is absolutely safe to instantiate it using a new keyword.