For clarity consider following design -
Interface MyIface{
myInterfaceContract(someObject);
};
Class Child1 implements MyIface{
myInterfaceContract(someObject){ //implemented }
myChild1Action(){ //implemented }
}
Class Child2 implements MyIface{
myInterfaceContract(someObject){ //implemented }
myChild2Action(){ //implemented }
}
I know how to achieve interface injection through spring annotation.
doubt is -
If interface based injection is done then how can I access methods directly implemented in my child class i.e. myChild1Action()/myChild2Action()
Am i doing or thinking drastically wrong?
I'd say your thinking is confused. If you are injecting based on the interface then that implies that the interface gives you all the functionality you need. If you need methods from the implementations then that interface isn't giving you what you need and injecting a concrete implementation is what you need to do.
Most of the time, if you are using instanceof to find what class you have so you can call some extra method, then it's a sign your design is broken.
You might find it helpful to define a "Finder" interface and have Child1 implement that as well and inject the bean into a Finder field as well as a MyIFace field.
Related
we use interface for autowiring service into controller
this is for loose coupling , coz the interface can hold object of any of its implementations. so no need to write the implementation name and create tight coupling.
however when we have more than one implementations for an interface, we write the #qualifier .
my question is if we have to write qualifier to tell which implementation needs to be injected, then should we still call it loose coupling??
class ServiceInterface {
interfaceMethod();
}
implementation 1:
#component("service1")
class ServiceImpl1 implements ServiceInterface {
interfacemethod(){
}
}
implementation 2:
#component("service2")
class ServiceImpl2 implements ServiceInterface {
interfaceMethod(){
}
now only instead of directly creating Object of ServiceImpl1() using new
ServiceImpl1 obj = new ServiceImpl1();
we write in
class Controller {
#autowired
#qualifier("service1")
ServiceInterface se;
sc.interfaceMethod();
}
Partially yes, because the component that uses the injected qualified bean still didn't create it or handle its lifecycle.
But indeed using #Qualifier creates some sort of coupling. If you want to avoid this, consider making one of your ServiceInterface beans the primary implementation for the interface annotating its class with #Primary as follows:
#Component
#Primary
class ServiceImpl1 implements ServiceInterface {
interfacemethod(){
}
}
With this, every time you need a ServiceInterface implementation but you don't actually specify which one you want (using #Qualifier) the primary one is injected by Spring.
Even though you are using the #Qualifier annotation you are still using inversion of control to let the framework manage your dependencies.
Furthermore, lets say you wouldn't autowire this implementation but use 'new' to create your object.
When the implementation changes you would need to update all the places where this is created. However, with dependency injection you wouldn't need to do so. Therefore you still have the advantages of dependency injection with regards to loose coupling.
If you would like to have your implementation less coupled with your target class then you could do a few things
Use #Primary for a bean to determine the default implementation.
Autowire your implementations into a List<ServiceInterface>
Use Spring's ObjectFactory to determine which bean to use at runtime
Use Profiles to determine which bean to autowire
I am wondering what is the current best practice as to the use of factory pattern within the context of Spring framework in using dependency injection. My wonder arises about whether the factory pattern is still relevant nowadays in light of the use of Spring dependency injection. I did some searching and see some past discussion (Dependency Injection vs Factory Pattern) but seem there is different view.
I see in some real life project in using a Map to hold all the beans and rely on autowiring to create those beans. When the bean is needed, it get it via the map using the key.
public abstract class Service {
//some methods
}
#Component
public class serviceA extends Service {
//implementation
}
#Component
public class serviceB extends Service {
//implementation
}
Map<String, Service> services;
But I see there is some difference among the two approaches.
Using the above method, all beans are created on application start up and the creation of object is handled by the framework. It also implies there is only one bean for each type.
While for factory pattern, the factory class creates the object on request. And it can create a new object for each request.
I think a deeper question may be, when Spring framework is used in a project, should it be strived to not create any object inside a class, which means the factory pattern ( or any creational design patterns?) should not be used, as Spring is supposed to be the central handler of the objects dependency ?
The answer to this question can be really deep and broad, I'll try to provide some points that hopefully will help.
First off, spring stores its beans (singletons) in the ApplicationContext. Essentially this is the map you're talking about. In a nutshell, it allows getting the bean by name, type, etc.
ApplicationContext, while being a really important concept, is not the whole Spring, in fact Spring framework allows much more flexibility:
You say, using a map implies that all the beans will be created at the beginning of the application and there is one instance of the bean.
Spring has a concept of Lazy beans, basically supporting a concept of beans being actually created only when they're required for the first time, so Spring supports the "delayed" beans initialization
Spring also allows more than one instance of a bean per type. So this map is more "advanced". For example you can create more than one implementation of the interface and use declare both as beans. As long as you provide enough information about what bean should be injected to the class that might use them (for example with a help of qualifiers suppored in spring), you're good to go. In addition, there are features in spring IoC container that allow injecting all registered implementations of an interface into a list:
interface Foo {}
#Component
class FooImpl1 implements Foo {}
#Component
class FooImpl2 implements Foo {}
class Client {
#Autowired
List<Foo> allFoos;
}
Now you say:
While for factory pattern, the factory class creates the object on request. And it can create a new object for each request.
Actually Spring can create objects per request. Not all beans have to be singletons, in general spring has a concept of scopes for this purposes.
For example, scope prototype means that Spring will create a bean upon each usage. In particular one interesting usage that spring supports in variety of ways is Injecting prototype bean into singleton. Some solutions use exactly like a factory (read about annotation #Lookup others rely on auto-generated proxy in runtime (like javax.inject.Provider). Prototype scope beans are not held in the application context, so here again spring goes beyond a simple map abstraction.
Last feature that you haven't mentioned is that sometimes even for singletons the initialization can be a little bit more complicated then calling a constructor with Parameters. Spring can address that by using Java Configurations:
#Configuration
public class MyConfig {
public SomeComplicatedObject foo(#Value("...") config, Bar bar) {
SomeComplicatedObject obj = new SomeComplicatedObject() // lets pretend this object is from some thirdparty, it only has no-op constructor, and you can't place spring annotations on it (basically you can't change it):
obj.setConfig(config);
obj.setBar(bar);
return obj;
}
}
The method foo here initializes the object SomeComplicatedObject and returns it. This can be used instead of factories to integrate "legacy" code (well, java configurations go way beyond this, but its out of scope for this question).
So bottom line, you Spring as an IoC container can provide many different ways to deal with object creation, in particular it can do everything that factory design pattern offers.
Now, I would like to also refer to your last sentense:
I think a deeper question may be, when Spring framework is used in a project, should it be strived to not create any object inside a class, which means the factory pattern ( or any creational design patterns?) should not be used, as Spring is supposed to be the central handler of the objects dependency ?
Indeed you don't have to use Factory Pattern when using Spring, since (as I hopefully have convinced you) provides everything that factory can do and more.
Also I agree that spring is supposed to be the central handler of the objects dependency (unless there are also parts of the application which are written in a different manner so you have to support both :) )
I don't think we should avoid using "new" altogether, not everything should/can be a bean, but I do see (from my subjective experience, so this is arguable) that you use it much less leaving the creation of most of the objects to Spring.
Should we avoid a usage of any creation design pattern? I don't think so, sometimes you can opt for implementing "builder" design pattern for example, its also a creational pattern but spring doesn't provide a similar abstraction.
I think if your project uses Spring framework you should use it. Although it depends on your project design e.g. You may use creational patterns along side with Spring IoC. e.g when you have abstraction layers not framework dependant (agnostic code)
interface ServiceFactory {
Service create(String type);
}
#Component
class SpringServiceFactory implements ServiceFactory {
#Autowired private ApplicationContext context;
Service create(String type) {
return context.getBean(type)
}
}
I use Factory pattern as well when I refactor legacy not unit testable code which also uses Spring Framework in order to implement unit tests.
// legacy service impossible to mock
class LegacyApiClient implements Closeable {...}
#Component
class LegacyApiClientFactory {
LegacyApiClient create(String endpoint) {
return new LegacyApiClient(endpoint);
}
}
#Component
class OtherService {
private final String endpoint
private final LegacyApiClientFactory factory;
OtherService(#Value("${post.endpoint}") String endpoint,
LegacyApiClientFactory factory) {...}
void doCall {
try (LegacyApiClient client = factory.create(endpoint)) {
client.postSomething();
}
}
}
....
// a random unit test
LegacyApiClient client = mock(LegacyApiClient.class)
LegacyApiClientFactory factory = mock(LegacyApiClientFactory.class)
OtherService service = new OtherService("http://scxsc", factory);
when(factory.create(any())).thenReturn(client)
service.doCall()
....
I have a basic Auto-wiring Question. I see the following two implementations that are possible in Spring auto-wiring
Method1
public class SimpleMovieLister {
private MovieFinder movieFinder;
#Autowired
public void setMovieFinder(MovieFinder movieFinder) {
this.movieFinder = movieFinder;
}
// ...
}
Method2
public class SimpleMovieLister {
#Autowired
private MovieFinder movieFinder;
}
My understanding is that both are the same and I use a lot of Method2 in my code. What are the situations in which Method1 is useful ? Or is it just a case of Spring evolution and we have both possible ways in which to implement.
Sorry, if the question is too basic, but I need to get this cleared up
Method 1 is Setter Injection.
Method 2 is Field Injection.
A 3rd method is Constructor Injection
Example:
public class SimpleMovieLister {
private MovieFinder movieFinder;
#Autowired
public SimpleMovieLister(MovieFinder movieFinder) {
this.movieFinder = movieFinder;
}
// ...
}
Method 3, Constructor Injection is preferred because it makes testing significantly easier since you can pass in the required dependency.
Also, if your Bean only has 1 Constructor, then you can omit the #Autowired annotation. Spring will automatically choose that constructor method when creating the bean.
A good snippet from the docs:
The Spring team generally advocates constructor injection as it
enables one to implement application components as immutable objects
and to ensure that required dependencies are not null. Furthermore
constructor-injected components are always returned to client
(calling) code in a fully initialized state. As a side note, a large
number of constructor arguments is a bad code smell, implying that the
class likely has too many responsibilities and should be refactored to
better address proper separation of concerns.
Setter injection should primarily only be used for optional
dependencies that can be assigned reasonable default values within the
class. Otherwise, not-null checks must be performed everywhere the
code uses the dependency. One benefit of setter injection is that
setter methods make objects of that class amenable to reconfiguration
or re-injection later. Management through JMX MBeans is therefore a
compelling use case for setter injection.
Use the DI style that makes the most sense for a particular class.
Sometimes, when dealing with third-party classes for which you do not
have the source, the choice is made for you. For example, if a
third-party class does not expose any setter methods, then constructor
injection may be the only available form of DI.
https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/html/beans.html
Method 1 is setter Injection
Setter injection should primarily only be used for optional
dependencies that can be assigned reasonable default values within the
class. Otherwise, not-null checks must be performed everywhere the
code uses the dependency. One benefit of setter injection is that
setter methods make objects of that class amenable to reconfiguration
or re-injection later.
Method 2 is field Injection
The short question:
Does Castle Windsor have something similar to Spring.Net's "Lookup Method Injection" that can be configured from XML, which provides the ability to fetch transient instances from the container without the class being aware of the IoC container?
The long question:
I'm a long time Spring/Spring.Net user and I have been experimenting with Castle Windsor, by trying to port a project over to it. Spring.Net has a concept of "Lookup Method Injection" which (from the Spring docs)...
Lookup method injection is the ability of the container to override methods on container managed objects, to return the result of looking up another named object in the container. The lookup typically involves a prototype object as in the scenario described in the preceding section. The Spring framework implements this method injection by a dynamically generating a subclass overriding the method using the classes in the System.Reflection.Emit namespace.
What this means is, If I had the following...
public class SomeTransient
{
// ... I have dependencies that need to be filled by IoC container
}
public class SomeClass
{
public virtual void Work()
{
var o = CreateTransient();
}
public virtual SomeTransient CreateTransient() { }
}
I can instruct Spring to override the CreateTransient method, and have that method return a new container created transient instance (with it's dependencies initialized) each time the method is called.
The unique part of this is, it doesn't require direct links to the Spring Framework (eg. SomeClass doesn't have to implement a specific interface).
Is there something similar in Castle Windsor to accomplish this via XML?
(I will eventually move away from XML config, but at the moment I'm just trying to get it running)
Castle has something better; Typed Factories.
You can also inject even a delegate!
http://stw.castleproject.org/Windsor.Typed-Factory-Facility-delegate-based-factories.ashx
It is better because it does not depend on dynamically generation code, and it looks much more cleaner.
It looks much more cleaner because the class doesn't depend on someone overriding that method. It is impossible to test this class without subclassing.
If you really want to do something like this, i would expect:
public abstract class SomeClass
{
public abstract SomeTransient CreateTransient();
}
but... again it doesn't feel right.
Edit 2
Unity 2 support these kind of delegate factories; you can read more here:
http://www.truewill.net/myblog/index.php/2010/05/06/unity_2_0_combining_injectionfactory_and
thanks to #eiximenis
I am using structuremap in an asp.net (mvc) project and I am fairly happy with the functionality. One thing just came to me where I am not sure if I am too blind to see.
I get several services instantiated in my controller class by structure map, but I want them to share methods that are base (hint) to all services. How can I achieve this? Using a base class does not really work (or do I have to reflect on the type?) because the base class methods will not be available in the interface description that defines the service. Do I have to add the method signature into every interface? I want to have all Service classes return their availability (e.g. bool upandrunning).
Any hints?
Interfaces can extend other interfaces in .Net right? In Java it would be:
interface BaseService {
boolean upAndRunning();
}
interface OtherService extends BaseService { ... }
noah that is it! I knew I was blind outch
interface BaseService{
bool upAndRunning();
}
interface OtherService : BaseService { ... }
is the C# syntax.
Thanks!