I want to create a utility Bean for common URL parsing in my ZK Composers. However, I want to make sure it is safe to use things like Executions.getCurrent() in a Spring managed Bean. I'm pretty sure it is as Executions.getCurrent() is static to begin with.
Here's what I'm thinking of doing..
#Component
public MyUrlBean {
// TODO I will, of course, program to an interface here =)
private static final String MY_OBJECT_URL_PARAMETER = "my_obj";
public MyObject getMyObjectFromURL() {
Execution ex = Executions.getCurrent();
String value = ex.getParameter(MY_OBJECT_URL_PARAMETER)
// ... db fetch and the like
}
}
..used like so..
#VariableResolver(DelegatingVariableResolver.class)
public MyComposer extends SelectorComposer<Window> {
#WireVariable
public MyUrlBean myUrlBean;
#Override
public void doAfterCompose(Window component) {
MyObject myObject = myUrlBean.getMyObjectFromURL();
// ...
}
}
So, doing things this way, should everything work fine or should I anticipate problems with user sessions clashing or the like?
Spring beans are NOT static singletons, correct? Instead they are instance classes that are autowired to save computation time of actually newing up objects, correct? If that is the case then there definitely won't be clashes between users like this.
Anyway, as I mentioned, Executions.getCurrent() is static. Hmm, how does that work with multiple users accessing a webapp?
Yes, it's safe.
I don't have much official sources to link here, but for what it's worth, my previous team has been using this in almost every page (to get a user context) of an app serving over 3000 users in production with no recorded problem in two years.
Related
I have a java web application developed on Spring framework which uses mybatis. I see that the datasource is defined in beans.xml. Now I want to add a secondary data source too as a backup. For e.g, if the application is not able to connect to the DB and gets some error, or if the server is down, then it should be able to connect to a different datasource. Is there a configuration in Spring to do this or we will have to manually code this in the application?
I have seen primary and secondary notations in Spring boot but nothing in Spring. I could achieve these in my code where the connection is created/retrieved, by connecting to the secondary datasource if the connection to the primary datasource fails/timed out. But wanted to know if this can be achieved by making changes just in Spring configuration.
Let me clarify things one-by-one-
Spring Boot has a #Primary annotation but there is no #Secondary annotation.
The purpose of the #Primary annotation is not what you have described. Spring does not automatically switch data sources in any way. #Primary merely tells the spring which data source to use in case we don't specify one in any transaction. For more detail on this- https://www.baeldung.com/spring-data-jpa-multiple-databases
Now, how do we actually switch datasources when one goes down-
Most people don't manage this kind of High-availability in code. People usually prefer to 2 master database instances in an active-passive mode which are kept in sync. For auto-failovers, something like keepalived can be used. This is also a high subjective and contentious topic and there are a lot of things to consider here like can we afford replication lag, are there slaves running for each master(because then we have to switch slaves too as old master's slaves would now become out of sync, etc. etc.) If you have databases spread across regions, this becomes even more difficult(read awesome) and requires yet more engineering, planning, and design.
Now since, the question specifically mentions using application code for this. There is one thing you can do. I don't advice to use it in production though. EVER. You can create an ASPECTJ advice around your all primary transactional methods using your own custom annotation. Lets call this annotation #SmartTransactional for our demo.
Sample Code. Did not test it though-
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.METHOD)
public #interface SmartTransactional {}
public class SomeServiceImpl implements SomeService {
#SmartTransactional
#Transactional("primaryTransactionManager")
public boolean someMethod(){
//call a common method here for code reusability or create an abstract class
}
}
public class SomeServiceSecondaryTransactionImpl implements SomeService {
#Transactional("secondaryTransactionManager")
public boolean usingTransactionManager2() {
//call a common method here for code reusability or create an abstract class
}
}
#Component
#Aspect
public class SmartTransactionalAspect {
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext context;
#Pointcut("#annotation(...SmartTransactional)")
public void smartTransactionalAnnotationPointcut() {
}
#Around("smartTransactionalAnnotationPointcut()")
public Object methodsAnnotatedWithSmartTransactional(final ProceedingJoinPoint joinPoint) throws Throwable {
Method method = getMethodFromTarget(joinPoint);
Object result = joinPoint.proceed();
boolean failure = Boolean.TRUE;// check if result is failure
if(failure) {
String secondaryTransactionManagebeanName = ""; // get class name from joinPoint and append 'SecondaryTransactionImpl' instead of 'Impl' in the class name
Object bean = context.getBean(secondaryTransactionManagebeanName);
result = bean.getClass().getMethod(method.getName()).invoke(bean);
}
return result;
}
}
I have some data objects that are common across a Spring boot application - one is the logged in employee object and other is a category. I have created a #Component class which contains these are static variables. This way I do not even have to autowire them. They can be used directly like CurrentContext.employee in controllers.
#Component
public final class CurrentContext {
public static Category currentCategory;
public static Employee employee;
#Autowired
private CategoryService categoryService;
#Autowired
private EmployeeService employeeService;
#EventListener
public void onApplicationEvent(ContextRefreshedEvent event) {
currentCategory = categoryService.getCategory();
}
#EventListener
public void onLoginSuccess(InteractiveAuthenticationSuccessEvent event) {
employee = employeeService.getEmployeeByUserId(((MyUserDetails) event.getAuthentication().getPrincipal()).getUserId());
}
}
Is this a right way? Please suggest if there is a better way to handle shared data
Edit
Some background - I require the current logged in employee and a category which is common for all employees. So I autowired employeeService and categoryService in my controllers and use them to get the data. They are required in almost all my controller methods, so, I wanted to create a bean of these so that I directly use them in my controller and also save frequent database calls.
Normally, we only put the dependencies related to the cross-cutting concerns (i.e dependencies that are across the whole application such as security , logging , transaction stuff , time provider etc.) in the static field.
By accessing these kind of dependencies in the static way , we don't need to pass them through method parameters /constructors from object to object , which will make the API much cleaner without such noise (BTW. This is called Ambient Context Pattern in the .NET world).
Your Employee object most probably belong to this type , so it is ok to access it in a static way. But as their scope is per session , you cannot simply put it in the static field of a class. If yes, then you always get the same employee for all sessions. Instead, you have to somehow store it in an object which is session scope (e.g HttpSession) . Then at the beginning of handling a web request , you get it from the session and then put it in a ThreadLocal which is encapsulated inside a "ContextHolder" object. You then access that "ContextHolder" in a static way.
Sound very complicated and scary ? Don't worry as Spring Security has already implemented this stuff for you. What you need to do is to customize Authentication#getPrincipal()or extend default Authentication to contain your Employee. Then get it using SecurityContextHolder.getContext().getAuthentication()
For your currentCategory , if they are not the cross-cutting concerns and is the application scope , make a singleton bean to get it values is a much better OOP design.
#Component
public final class CurrentCategoryProvider {
#Autowired
private CategoryService categoryService;
public Category getCurrentCategory(){
//or cache the value to the an internal properties depending on your requirements
return categoryService.getCategory();
}
}
You then inject CurrentCategoryProvider to the bean that need to access currentCategory.
Please correct me on the following scenario. ( Question is at the end)
(I asked a similar question that was un-organized and it was voted to close. So I have summarized the question here into a scope that can be replied with exact answers.)
I am developing a web application with multiple layers using nhibernate as ORM. My layer structure is as follow
Model Layer
Repository Layer
Services Layer
UI Layer
with the above layers, the classes and interfaces are placed as below.
ProductController.cs (UI Layer)
public class ProductController : Controller
{
ProductServices _ProductServices;
NHibernate.ISession _Session;
public ProductController()
{
_Session = SessionManager.GetCurrentSession();
_ProductServices = new ProductServices(
new ProductRepository(), _Session);
}
// Cont..
}
ProductServices.cs (Service Layer)
public class ProductServices : IProductServices
{
protected IProductRepository _ProductRepository;
protected NHibernate.ISession _Session;
public ProductServices(IProductRepository productRepository,
NHibernate.ISession session)
{
_ProductRepository = productRepository;
_Session = session;
_ProductRepository.SetSession(_Session);
}
// cont...
}
ProductRepository.cs (Repository Layer)
public class ProductRepository : IProductRepository
{
NHibernate.ISession _Session;
public void SetSession(NHibernate.ISession session)
{
_Session = session;
}
public IEnumerable<Product> FindAll()
{
return _Session.CreateCriteria<Product>().List<Product>();
}
//cont..
}
From the UI layer, I create the session as request per session and inject into service layer with the help of class constructor. Then set the session of repository with a help of a method.
I am afraid if I pass the _Session directly to repository as constructor, I will not have the control over it under the service layer. Also there is a future extension plan for using a webservice layer.
** Is there a way to ensure in each method of ProductRepository class that _Session is set already, without writing the piece of code if(_Session==null) in each and every method as it is repeating the same code.
** If the above pattern is wrong, Please show me a right way to achieve this goal.
What you are doing amazed me a bit. You applying the constructor injection pattern in the ProductService, which is definitely the way to go. On the other hand you are not injecting the dependencies into the ProductController, but that class is requesting one of those dependencies through a static class (this is the Service Locator anti-pattern) and creates a ProductServices class itself. This makes this class hard to test and makes your application less flexible and maintainable, since you can't easily change, decorate or intercept the use of the ProductServices class, when it's been used in multiple places.
And although you are (correctly) using constructor injection for the dependencies in the ProductServices, you are passing those dependencies on to the product repository, instead of applying the constructor injection pattern on the ProductResopistory as well.
Please show me a right way to achieve this goal.
The right way is to apply the constructor injection pattern everywhere. When you do this, your code will start to look like this:
public class ProductController : Controller
{
private ProductServices _ProductServices;
public ProductController(ProductServices services)
{
_ProductServices = services;
}
// Cont..
}
public class ProductServices : IProductServices
{
private IProductRepository _ProductRepository;
public ProductServices(
IProductRepository productRepository)
{
_ProductRepository = productRepository;
}
// cont...
}
public class ProductRepository : IProductRepository
{
private ISession _Session;
public ProductRepository (ISession session)
{
_Session = session;
}
public IEnumerable<Product> FindAll()
{
return _Session
.CreateCriteria<Product>().List<Product>();
}
//cont..
}
See how each class only takes in dependencies that it uses itself. So the ProductController and ProductServices don't depend on ISession (I made the assumption that only ProductRepoistory needs ISession). See how -from a class's perspective- everything is much simpler now?
Did we actually solve a problem here? It seems like we just moved the problem of wiring all classes together up the dependency graph. Yes we did move the problem. And this is a good thing. Now each class can be tested in isolation, is easier to follow, and the application as a whole is more maintainable.
Somewhere in the application however, a ProductController must be created. This could look like this:
new ProductController(
new ProductServices(
new ProductRepository(
SessionManager.GetCurrentSession())));
In its normal configuration, ASP.NET MVC will create controller classes for you, and it needs a default constructor to do so. If you want to wire up controllers using constructor injection (which you should definitely do), you need to do something 'special' to get this to work.
ASP.NET MVC allows you to override the default ControllerFactory class. This allows you to decide how to create controller instances. However, when your application starts to grow, it will get really awkward very quickly when you are creating your dependency graphs by hand (as my last example shows). In this case, it would be much better to use a Dependency Injection framework. Most of them contain a feature / package that allows you to integrate it with ASP.NET MVC and automatically allows to use constructor injection on your MVC controllers.
Are we done yet? Well... are we ever? There's one thing in your design that triggered a flag in my brain. Your system contains a class named ProductServices. Although a wild guess, the name Services seems like you wrapped all product related business operations inside that class. Depending on the size of your system, the number of people on your team, and the amount of changes you need to make, this might get problematic. For instance, how to you effectively apply cross-cutting concerns (such as logging, validation, profiling, transaction management, fault tolerance improvements) in such way that to system stays maintainable?
So instead of wrapping all operations in a single ProductServices class, try giving each business transaction / use case its own class and apply the same (generic) interface to all those classes. This description might be a bit vague, but it is a great way to improve the maintainability of small and big systems. You can read more about that here.
You can use a dependency injection container such as Autofac to instantiate your session and manage the lifetime of it. Leave the responsibility of instantiating the session to Autofac and simply inject the ISession interface into any classes that require the dependency. Have a look at this post: Managing NHibernate ISession with Autofac
You will also find this wiki page useful about configuring Autofac with MVC3: http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/MvcIntegration3
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.
Using a DI container (in this case, Ninject) is it possible - - or rather, wise to cache a frequently used object for the entire application lifetime (or at least until it is refreshed)?
To cite example, say I have a Template. There are many Template objects, but each user will inherit at least the lowest level one. This is immutable and will never change without updating everything that connects to it (so it will only change on administration demand, never based on user input). It seems foolish to keep querying the database over and over for information I know is not changed.
Would caching this be best done in my IoC container, or should I outsource it to something else?
I already store ISessionFactory (nHibernate) as a Singleton. But that's a little bit different because it doesn't include a query to the database, just the back-end to open and close ISession objects to it.
So basically I would do something like this..
static class Immutable
{
[Inject]
public IRepository<Template> TemplateRepository { get; set; }
public static ITemplate Template { get; set; }
public void Initialize()
{
if(Immutable.Template == null)
{
Immutable.Template = TemplateRepository.Retrieve(1); // obviously better logic here.
}
}
class TemplateModule : Module
{
public void Load()
{
Bind<ITemplate>().ToMethod(() => Immutable.Initialize())InSingletonScope();
}
}
Is this a poor approach? And if so, can anyone recommend a more intelligent one?
I'd generally avoid using staticness and null-checking from your code - create normal classes without singleton wiring by default and layer that aspect on top via the container. Ditto, remove reliance on property injection - ctor injection is always better unless you have no choice
i.e.:
class TemplateManager
{
readonly IRepository<Template> _templateRepository;
public TemplateManager(IRepository<Template> templateRepository)
{
_templateRepository = templateRepository;
}
public ITemplate LoadRoot()
{
return _templateRepository.Retrieve(1); // obviously better logic here.
}
}
class TemplateModule : Module
{
public void Load()
{
Bind<ITemplate>().ToMethod(() => kernel.Get<TemplateManager>().LoadRoot()).InSingletonScope();
}
}
And then I'd question whether TemplateManager should become a ninject provider or be inlined.
As for the actual question... The big question is, how and when do you want to control clearing the cache to force reloading if you decided that the caching should be at session level, not app level due to authorization influences on the template tree? In general, I'd say that should be the Concern of an actual class rather than bound into your DI wiring or hardwired into whether a class is a static class or is a Singleton (as in the design pattern, not the ninject Scope).
My tendency would be to have a TemplateManager class with no static methods, and make that a singleton class in the container. However, to get the root template, consumers should get the TemplateManager injected (via ctor injection) but then say _templateManager.GetRootTemplate() to get the template.
That way, you can:
not have a reliance on fancy ninject providers and/or tie yourself to your container
have no singleton cruft or static methods
have simple caching logic in the TemplateManager
vary the Scoping of the manager without changing all the client code
have it clear that getting the template may or may not be a simple get operation
i.e, I'd manage it like so:
class TemplateManager
{
readonly IRepository<Template> _templateRepository;
public TemplateManager(IRepository<Template> templateRepository)
{
_templateRepository = templateRepository;
}
ITemplate _cachedRootTemplate;
ITemplate FetchRootTemplate()
{
if(_cachedRootTemplate==null)
_cachedRootTemplate = LoadRootTemplate();
return _cachedRootTemplate;
}
ITemplate LoadRoot()
{
return _templateRepository.Retrieve(1); // obviously better logic here.
}
}
register it like so:
class TemplateModule : Module
{
public void Load()
{
Bind<TemplateManager>().ToSelf().InSingletonScope();
}
}
and then consume it like so:
class TemplateConsumer
{
readonly TemplateManager _templateManager;
public TemplateConsumer(TemplateManager templateManager)
{
_templateManager = templateManager;
}
void DoStuff()
{
var rootTempalte = _templateManager.FetchRootTemplate();
Wild speculation: I'd also consider not having a separate IRepository being resolvable in the container (and
presumably having all sorts of ties into units of work). Instead, I'd have the TemplateRepository be a longer-lived thing not coupled to an ORM layer and Unit Of Work. IOW having a repository and a Manager none of which do anything well defined on their own isnt a good sign - the repository should not just be a Table Data Gateway - it should be able to be the place that an Aggregate Root such as Templates gets cached and collated together. But I'd have to know lots more about your code base before slinging out stuff like that without context!