In the below scenario, there is a generic controller. I am doing #PostConstruct to instantiate IfCompleted class. But the IfCompleted object is created as class variable. So fortify is throwing singleton member field. What is the solution to avoid this?
GenericController.java
#Controller
public class GenericController{
#Autowired
public UserService service;
#Autowired
public webRoot webroot;
public IfCompleted ifCompleted;
#PostContstruct
public void show(){
ifCompleted = new IfCompleted(webroot);
}
.....
.....
}
What the example in the question essentially does is take the control away from Spring, which is generally not a good thing. IfCompleted should be a bean whose lifecycle and wiring is controlled by Spring.
Assuming you can't or would prefer not to use XML or Java-based Container configuration to define the singleton IfCompleted with a #DependsOn constraint, it is now possible to create a bean definition from a #Component also, if for example you could only rely on component scanning.
Other useful tools for more complex lifecycle management are the org.springframework.beans.factory.InitializingBean and org.springframework.beans.factory.BeanFactoryAware interfaces.
The short/quick answer may be simply a case of defining the member as static, but I'm not familiar with Fortify's static analysis rules.
Thank you for the advice. I solved it by removing #PostConstruct block, and #Autowired for WebRoot declaration.I injected WebRoot as constructor argument for IfCompleted in the spring context.
#Controller
public class GenericController{
#Autowired
public UserService service;
#Autowired
public IfCompleted ifCompleted;
Related
So since I've been using Spring, if I were to write a service that had dependencies I would do the following:
#Component
public class SomeService {
#Autowired private SomeOtherService someOtherService;
}
I have now run across code that uses another convention to achieve the same goal
#Component
public class SomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
#Autowired
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
}
}
Both of these methods will work, I understand that. But is there some advantage to using option B? To me, it creates more code in the class and unit test. (Having to write constructor and not being able to use #InjectMocks)
Is there something I'm missing? Is there anything else the autowired constructor does besides add code to the unit tests? Is this a more preferred way to do dependency injection?
Yes, option B (which is called constructor injection) is actually recommended over field injection, and has several advantages:
the dependencies are clearly identified. There is no way to forget one when testing, or instantiating the object in any other circumstance (like creating the bean instance explicitly in a config class)
the dependencies can be final, which helps with robustness and thread-safety
you don't need reflection to set the dependencies. InjectMocks is still usable, but not necessary. You can just create mocks by yourself and inject them by simply calling the constructor
See this blog post for a more detailed article, by one of the Spring contributors, Olivier Gierke.
I will explain you in simple words:
In Option(A), you are allowing anyone (in different class outside/inside the Spring container) to create an instance using default constructor (like new SomeService()), which is NOT good as you need SomeOtherService object (as a dependency) for your SomeService.
Is there anything else the autowired constructor does besides add code
to the unit tests? Is this a more preferred way to do dependency
injection?
Option(B) is preferred approach as it does NOT allow to create SomeService object without actually resolving the SomeOtherService dependency.
Please note, that since Spring 4.3 you don't even need an #Autowired on your constructor, so you can write your code in Java style rather than tying to Spring's annotations.
Your snippet would look like that:
#Component
public class SomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
}
}
Good to know
If there is only one constructor call, there is no need to include an #Autowired annotation. Then you can use something like this:
#RestController
public class NiceController {
private final DataRepository repository;
public NiceController(ChapterRepository repository) {
this.repository = repository;
}
}
... example of Spring Data Repository injection.
Actually, In my experience, The second option is better. Without the need for #Autowired. In fact, it is wiser to create code that is not too tightly coupled with the framework (as good as Spring is). You want code that tries as much as possible to adopt a deferred decision-making approach. That is as much pojo as possible, so much such that the framework can be swapped out easily.
So I would advise you create a separate Config file and define your bean there, like this:
In SomeService.java file:
public class SomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
}
}
In ServiceConfig.java file:
#Config
public class ServiceConfig {
#Bean
public SomeService someService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
return new SomeService(someOtherService);
}
}
In fact, if you want to get deeply technical about it, there are thread safety questions (among other things) that arise with the use of Field Injection (#Autowired), depending on the size of the project obviously. Check this out to learn more on the advantages and disadvantages of Autowiring. Actually, the pivotal guys actually recommend that you use Constructor injection instead of Field Injection
I hope I won't be downgraded for expressing my opinion, but for me option A better reflects the power of Spring dependency injection, while in the option B you are coupling your class with your dependency, in fact you cannot instantiate an object without passing its dependencies from the constructor. Dependency Injection have been invented for avoid that by implementing Inversion of Control,so for me option B doesn't have any sense.
Autowired constructors provides a hook to add custom code before registering it in the spring container. Suppose SomeService class extends another class named SuperSomeService and it has some constructor which takes a name as its argument. In this case, Autowired constructor works fine. Also, if you have some other members to be initialized, you can do it in the constructor before returning the instance to spring container.
public class SuperSomeService {
private String name;
public SuperSomeService(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
#Component
public class SomeService extends SuperSomeService {
private final SomeOtherService someOtherService;
private Map<String, String> props = null;
#Autowired
public SomeService(SomeOtherService someOtherService){
SuperSomeService("SomeService")
this.someOtherService = someOtherService;
props = loadMap();
}
}
I prefer construction injection, just because I can mark my dependency as final which is not possible while injecting properties using property injection.
your dependencies should be final i.e not modified by program.
There are few cases when #Autowired is preferable.
One of them is circular dependency. Imagine the following scenario:
#Service
public class EmployeeService {
private final DepartmentService departmentService;
public EmployeeService(DepartmentService departmentService) {
this.departmentService = departmentService;
}
}
and
#Service
public class DepartmentService {
private final EmployeeService employeeService;
public DepartmentService(EmployeeService employeeService) {
this.employeeService = employeeService;
}
}
Then Spring Bean Factory will throw circular dependency exception. This won't happen if you use #Autowired annotation in both beans. And this is understandable: the constructor injection happens at very early stage of Spring Bean initialization, in createBeanInstance method of Bean Factory, while #Autowired-based injection happens way later, on post processing stage and is done by AutowiredAnnotationBeanPostProcessor.
Circular dependency is quite common in complex Spring Context application, and it needs not to be just two beans referring one another, it could a complex chain of several beans.
Another use case, where #Autowired is very helpful, is self-injection.
#Service
public class EmployeeService {
#Autowired
private EmployeeService self;
}
This might be needed to invoke an advised method from within the same bean. Self-injection is also discussed here and here.
There is a way to inject the dependencies through constructor using #RequeiredArgsContructor annotation from Lombok
#RequiredArgsConstructor
#Service
class A {
private final B b // needs to be declared final to be injected
}
In this way you don't need to specify a constructor
For example, have a class like as follows.
First XService service in class A is not null but second XService service in AmountValidator is null.I get NullPointerException I try to create bean new it works and then I get same exception when call AmountValidateService outsideRestService in XService.
How can I use XService everywhere that I use #Autowired annotation.
My main class:
#Service
class A extends AbstractA implements IA {
#Autowired
XService service; //first autowired definition. code go to check() method. service not null now.
public doSometing(){
validator.check();
service.methodA();
super.AbstractMethod();
}
}
Validator class used in class A :
class Validator<T> implements IValidator<T> {
public void check(){
rule.check(); // rule have a implements IValidator eg: amountValidator, dateValidator class
}
}
AmountValidator added to rule in class Validator.
#Component
class AmountValidator implements IValidator<T>{
#Autowired
XService service; // code comes here service is null. same service class mentioned above class A.
#Override
public void check(){
service.validateAmount(); // nullPointerException.
}
}
My main Service
#Component
class XService {
#Autowired
AmountValidateService outsideRestService;
public validateAmount(){
outsideRestService.validate(); // nullPointer when create XService with the `New` keyword
}
}
You have an error cause you are trying to create components/beans/services yourself. As i mentioned in comment when you create components yourself it - #Autowired doesn't work - thats you've got NPE
All classes annotated with #Component, #Service are considered special classes which are instantiated by Spring automatically via DI, instantiating them with new defeats the purpose of DI.
These special classes are named Spring Beans.
Every time the application starts, the framework instances all Spring Beans, and all #Autowired fields are injected by Spring automatically. But the Spring Beans must be defined somewhere in the class path. Else you will receive a NoSuchBeanDefinitionException
As an attempt to answer the question, since I don't have a stack trace nor all the Spring Bean definitions:
When you instantiate XService using new XService() your new instance will not actually initialize the field AmountValidateService outsideRestService, effectively leaving it as null.
You may set the field yourself but as I mentioned earlier, it defeats the purpose of DI
Your question is not complex, it is incomplete.
I have a Controller class that maps request urls. I have an instance of class annotated with #Service. For example;
#Controller
class MainController{
#Autowired
private UserService userService;
...
}
As I know, this instance is created automatically by Spring container, because I added #Autowired but I use this instance when condition is met in the method. If the condition is not met, I do not need this instance. Thus, this declaration is overhead. I mean, I may not use it even though it is created.
I would like to create the object when it is needed. How can I do this in the code? I probably will not use #Autowired because I need a dynamic object creation. What else do I need to do?
You can use Setter injection. The #Autowired annotation can be used on setter methods. In the below example, when the annotation is used on the setter method, the setter will be called with the instance of FooFormatter when FooService is created:
public class FooService {
private FooFormatter fooFormatter;
#Autowired
public void setFooFormatter(FooFormatter fooFormatter) {
this.fooFormatter = fooFormatter;
}
}
In this way you can inject you service when you call the setter method explicitly :) Hope this will help you :)
LATER EDIT
I've just found a way that might resolve your problem, it's named #Lazy.
You can use #Lazy annotation like this:
On your service class, put #Lazy annotation before the public Class XXX definition;
When declaring/autowiring a Service type in your controller context, put #Lazy annotation with #Autowired annotation on top of the declared attribute like
#Lazy
#Autowired
private FooFormatter fooFormatter;
for more info, check the link: http://www.baeldung.com/spring-lazy-annotation
You need to use #Lazy annotation with a combination of Bean Life Cycle annotations. But one thing you need to consider is the performance of your controller if you will re-create your service each time you need it, then you degradates the performance.
Given the following code:
public class MyService implements InitializingBean {
#Autowired
private Set<MyDep> allDeps;
#Override
public void afterPropertiesSet() {
... use 'allDeps' here ...
}
}
MyDep is an interface with three different implementations all of which also implement InitializingBean (by extending the same abstract base class).
When I go to use allDeps during set up of MyService only 2 out of the 3 injected instances are themselves fully initialized. One of the instances is constructed and injected, but it's afterPropertiesSet() has not yet been run. In the other two instances it has been run.
It's been my understanding that Spring will run afterPropertiesSet() on a bean only after all of its dependencies are injected, and they will only be injected once they're fully initialized. Perhaps my understanding is wrong? Is this a bug in Spring? I've also tried using getBeansOfType(MyDep.class) with the same results.
FWIW, looks like there's an similar unanswered question from 2 years ago. So perhaps it's time to re-ask?
Spring dependency injection not completing in time
Given that it turns out there is a cyclic dependency in my bean definitions, the solution is to wait until the full context is created before doing the initialization in MyService.
Perhaps not the best solution, given that anything that depends on MyService in its set-up could have problems, but I don't currently have any of those. So, this seems to do the trick for me:
public class MyService implements ApplicationListener<ContextRefreshedEvent> {
#Autowired
private Set<MyDep> allDeps;
#Override
public void onApplicationEvent(ContextRefreshedEvent event) {
... now I can use 'allDeps' here ...
}
}
I'm developing an application using Spring. I need to use the #Service annotation. I have ServiceI and ServiceImpl such that ServiceImpl implements ServiceI. I'm confused here as to where should I keep the #Service annotation.
Should I annotate the interface or the implementation with #Service? What are the differences between these two approaches?
I never put #Component (or #Service, ...) at an interface, because this make the interface useless. Let me explain why.
claim 1: If you have an interface then you want to use that interface for the injection point type.
claim 2: The purpose of an interface is that it define a contract that can been implemented by several implementations. On the other side you have your injection point (#Autowired). Having just one interface and only one class that implement it, is (IMHO) useless, and violates YAGNI.
fact: When you put:
#Component (or #Service, ...) at an interface,
have multiple classes that implements it,
at least two classes become Spring Beans, and
have an injection point that use the interface for type based injection,
then you will get and NoUniqueBeanDefinitionException
(or you have a very special configurations setup, with Environment, Profiles or Qualifiers ...)
Conclusion: If you use #Component (or #Service, ...) at an interface then you must violate at least one of the two clains. Therefore I think it is not useful (except some rare scenarios) to put #Component at interface level.
Spring-Data-JPA Repository interfaces are something complete different
Basically annotations like #Service, #Repository, #Component, etc. they all serve the same purpose:
auto-detection when using annotation-based configuration and classpath
scanning.
From my experience I am always using #Service annotation on the interfaces or abstract classes and annotations like #Component and #Repository for their implementation. #Component annotation I am using on those classes which serves basic purposes, simple Spring beans, nothing more. #Repository annotation I am using in the DAO layer, for e.g. if I have to communicate to the database, have some transactions, etc.
So I would suggest to annotate your interface with the #Service and other layers depending on the functionality.
I used #Component, #Service, #Controller and #Repository annotations only on the implementation classes and not on the interface. But #Autowired annotation with Interfaces still worked for me. If there's only one implementation of your interface Spring component scan automatically finds it with just #Autowired annotation. In case you have multiple implementations, you will need to use the #Qualifier annotation along with #Autowired to inject the correct implementation at the injection point.
1. #Service on Interfaces
#Service
public interface AuthenticationService {
boolean authenticate(String username, String password);
}
Normally, that's fine, but there's a drawback. By putting Spring's #Service on interfaces, we create an extra dependency and couple our interfaces with an outside library.
Next, to test the autodetection of our new service beans, let's create an implementation of our AuthenticationService:
public class InMemoryAuthenticationService implements AuthenticationService {
#Override
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
//...
}
}
We should pay attention that our new implementation, InMemoryAuthenticationService, doesn't have the #Service annotation on it. We left #Service only on the interface, AuthenticationService.
So, let's run our Spring context with the help of a basic Spring Boot setup:
#SpringBootApplication
public class AuthApplication {
#Autowired
private AuthenticationService authService;
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(AuthApplication.class, args);
}
}
When we run our app, we may get the infamous NoSuchBeanDefinitionException, and the Spring context fails to start.
Therefore, placing #Service on interfaces isn't enough for the auto-detection of Spring components.
2. #Service on Abstract Classes
Using the #Service annotation on abstract classes isn't common.
We'll start by defining an abstract class from scratch and putting the #Service annotation on it:
#Service
public abstract class AbstractAuthenticationService {
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
return false;
}
}
Next, we extend AbstractAuthenticationService to create a concrete implementation without annotating it:
public class LdapAuthenticationService extends AbstractAuthenticationService {
#Override
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
//...
}
}
Accordingly, we also update our AuthApplication, to inject the new service class:
#SpringBootApplication
public class AuthApplication {
#Autowired
private AbstractAuthenticationService authService;
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(AuthApplication.class, args);
}
}
After we run our AuthApplication, the Spring context doesn't start. It ends up with the same NoSuchBeanDefinitionException exception again.
So, using #Service annotation on abstract classes doesn't have any effect in Spring.
3. #Service on Concrete Classes
Contrary to what we've seen above, it's quite a common practice to annotate the implementation classes instead of abstract classes or interfaces.
In this way, our goal is mostly to tell Spring this class is going to be a #Component and mark it with a special stereotype, which is #Service in our case.
Therefore, Spring will autodetect those classes from the classpath and automatically define them as managed beans.
So, let's put #Service on our concrete service classes this time around. We'll have one class that implements our interface and a second that extends the abstract class that we defined previously:
#Service
public class InMemoryAuthenticationService implements AuthenticationService {
#Override
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
//...
}
}
#Service
public class LdapAuthenticationService extends AbstractAuthenticationService {
#Override
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
//...
}
}
We should take notice here that our AbstractAuthenticationService doesn't implement the AuthenticationService here. Hence, we can test them independently.
Finally, we add both of our service classes into the AuthApplication and give it a try:
#SpringBootApplication
public class AuthApplication {
#Autowired
private AuthenticationService inMemoryAuthService;
#Autowired
private AbstractAuthenticationService ldapAuthService;
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(AuthApplication.class, args);
}
}
Our final test gives us a successful result, and the Spring context boots up with no exceptions. Both of the services are automatically registered as beans.
You might have a look at this page for the other explanations.
Pros of putting annotation on #Service is that it gives a hint that it is a service. I don't know if any implementing class will by default inherit this annoation.
Con side is that you are coupling your interface with a specific framework i.e. Spring, by using spring specific annotation.
As interfaces are supposed to be decoupled from implementation, I would not suggest using any framework specific Annotations or object part of your interface.
I would put #Service on your class but put the name of the interface as a parameter to the annotation e.g.
interface ServiceOne {}
#Service("ServiceOne")
class ServiceOneImpl implements ServiceOne{}
By doing that you get all the benefits and can still inject the interface but get the class
#Autowired
private ServiceOne serviceOne;
So your interface is not tied to spring framework and you can change the class at any time and not have to update all your injection points.
So if I wanted to change the implementation class I could just annotate the new class and remove from the first but that's all that is required to be changed. If you inject the class you could have a lot of work when ever you want to change the impl class.
One benefit of spring is to easily switch Service (or other) implementation.
For this, you need to annotate on the interface and declare variable like this :
#Autowired
private MyInterface myVariable;
and not :
#Autowired
private MyClassImplementationWhichImplementsMyInterface myVariable;
Like the first case, you can activate which implementation to inject from the moment it is unique (only one class implements the interface).
In the second case, you need to refactor all your code (the new class implementation has another name).
As a consequence, the annotation needs to be on the interface as much as possible. Furthermore, JDK proxies are well suited for this : they are created and instantiated at application startup because runtime type is known by advance, contrary to CGlib proxies.
interface MyService {}
#Service
class MyServiceImpl implements MyService{}
#Autowired
private MyService myService;
My testing result on spring-boot 2.7.4 is:
Adding #Service ONLY to interface doesn't create spring bean named MyService. It will error on Autowired.
#Service will need to be added to implementation class to create bean com.*.service.impl.MyServiceImpl $$EnhancerBySpringCGLIB$$9140ae19 Spring will wire it to private MyService myService;
There are 5 annotations which could be used for making spring beans. List in below of answers.
Do you really need an interface? If you are going to have one implementation for each service interface, just avoid it, use only class. Of course, if you don't have RMI or when interface proxy is required.
#Repository - use for injecting your dao layer classes.
#Service - use for injecting your service layer classes. In service layer also you might need to use #Transactional annotation for db transaction management.
#Controller - use for your frontend layer controllers, such as JSF managed beans injecting as spring beans.
#RestController - use for spring rest controllers, this would help you to avoid every time to put #ResponseBody and #RequestBody annotations in your rest methods.
#Component - use it in any other case when you need to Inject spring bean which is not controller, service, or dao class
To put it simply:
#Service is a Stereotype annotation for the service layer.
#Repository is a Stereotype annotation for the persistence layer.
#Component is a generic stereotype annotation used to tell Spring to create an instance of the object in the Application Context. It's possible to
define any name for the instance, the default is the class name as camel case.