But what about this:
#Service
public class DatabaseAccountService implements AccountService {
private final RiskAssessor riskAssessor;
public DatabaseAccountService(RiskAssessor riskAssessor) {
this.riskAssessor = riskAssessor;
}
// ...
}
This example is from the documentation:
https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/2.0.x/reference/html/using-boot-spring-beans-and-dependency-injection.html
Maybe I have not understood even the question. Could you comment?
In Spring there are at least 2 different ways for dependency injection: constructor injection and field injection. (leaving setter injection aside for now)
Constructor injection is the recommended way to do dependency injection:
#Service
public class DatabaseAccountService {
private final RiskAssessor riskAssessor;
#Autowired // annotation is not required in recent Spring versions
public DatabaseAccountService(RiskAssessor riskAssessor) {
this.riskAssessor = riskAssessor;
}
}
The referenced Spring documentation also shows an example for constructor injection, simply because it's the recommended way.
Field injection is used to inject dependencies directly into fields/properties as mentioned in the question.
#Service
public class DatabaseAccountService {
#Autowired // don't do this at home or work
private RiskAssessor riskAssessor;
public DatabaseAccountService() {
// RiskAssessor does not appear as constructor parameter
}
}
With the question in video "Can you use dependency injection against a (private) property?" they want to point exactly to field injection maybe to show the possibilities of Spring.
However, they also say that this is bad practice. The blog post Why field injection is evil explains why this is bad practice.
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
I'm trying to call a #Cacheable method from within the same class.
And it didn't work. Because of:
In proxy mode (the default), only external method calls coming in through the proxy are intercepted. This means that self-invocation (in effect, a method within the target object that calls another method of the target object) does not lead to actual caching at runtime even if the invoked method is marked with #Cacheable. Consider using the aspectj mode in this case. Also, the proxy must be fully initialized to provide the expected behavior, so you should not rely on this feature in your initialization code (that is, #PostConstruct).
It means, #Cachable(also #Transactional) works by proxy classes which is Spring AOP in. a internal call in the same class make call by 'this' instead of proxy classes.
To solve the problem, I should call a method by proxy or using AspectJ(another AOP).
So, I found 4 solutions.
What is your choice? and why others are not recommended?
Please, share your opinion!
using AspectJ (another AOP)
get the Bean from ApplicationContext and use it
#Service
public class UserService implements Service {
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext applicationContext;
private Service self;
#PostConstruct
private void init() {
self = applicationContext.getBean(UserService.class);
}
}
self-autowiring using #Resource //since Spring 4.3
#Component
#CacheConfig(cacheNames = "SphereClientFactoryCache")
public class CacheableSphereClientFactoryImpl implements SphereClientFactory {
/**
* 1. Self-autowired reference to proxified bean of this class.
*/
#Resource
private SphereClientFactory self;
#Override
#Cacheable(sync = true)
public SphereClient createSphereClient(#Nonnull TenantConfig tenantConfig) {
// 2. call cached method using self-bean
return self.createSphereClient(tenantConfig.getSphereClientConfig());
}
#Override
#Cacheable(sync = true)
public SphereClient createSphereClient(#Nonnull SphereClientConfig clientConfig) {
return CtpClientConfigurationUtils.createSphereClient(clientConfig);
}
}
make the Bean scope of the class as 'prototype' instead of 'singleton'
#Service
#Scope(proxyMode = ScopedProxyMode.TARGET_CLASS)
class AService {
private final AService _aService;
#Autowired
public AService(AService aService) {
_aService = aService;
}
#Cacheable("employeeData")
public List<EmployeeData> getEmployeeData(Date date){
..println("Cache is not being used");
...
}
public List<EmployeeEnrichedData> getEmployeeEnrichedData(Date date){
List<EmployeeData> employeeData = _aService.getEmployeeData(date);
...
}
}
I'm a newbie in spring :)
Actually, I choose the 4th solution, but I felt it isn't a good way. because I just need to call the caching method by proxy, and it make several beans to achieve it.
After reading articles, I think AspectJ is the best choice. It looks cool, Spring recommends it, and many people also recommend too.
But I don't understand how to AspectJ works (I will study) and I also don't know why others is not recommended.
references
Spring Cache #Cacheable - not working while calling from another method of the same bean
Spring cache #Cacheable method ignored when called from within the same class
https://spring.io/blog/2012/05/23/transactions-caching-and-aop-understanding-proxy-usage-in-spring
https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/integration.html#cache
While looking at an existing Spring application, I stumbled upon a class with field injection, which we all know isn't recommended for various reasons. I have then decided to refactor it to make use of a more appropriate approach: constructor based DI.
Before refactoring
#Component
public class MaintenanceModeInterceptor implements HandlerInterceptor {
private static final String MAINTENANCE_MODE_VIEW = "common/maintenanceMode";
#Autowired
private ApplicationObject applicationObject;
public MaintenanceModeInterceptor() {
// Required by Spring
}
...
}
After refactoring
#Component
public class MaintenanceModeInterceptor implements HandlerInterceptor {
private static final String MAINTENANCE_MODE_VIEW = "common/maintenanceMode";
private ApplicationObject applicationObject;
public MaintenanceModeInterceptor() {
// Required by Spring
}
#Autowired
public MaintenanceModeInterceptor(ApplicationObject applicationObject) {
this.applicationObject = applicationObject;
}
...
}
Maybe it is related to the fact that a default constructor is present. However, if I remove it, I end up having this exception:
Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: my.application.web.interceptor.MaintenanceModeInterceptor: method <init>()V not found
So my understanding is that Spring requires a default constructor for interceptors.
Is there any way to achieve construtor based DI in this scenario?
Thank you.
I think you should remove the non #Autowired constructor and do perform a clean build on your project.
I have a Spring MVC Controller in a very XML-slimmed application, we use a lot of annotations and as little config as possible. The Controller is working and it also has a number of resource values injected. But I've experienced a really strange behavior with this controller; annotated private fields referencing other components will not be injected.
This will not work.
#Controller
public class EntranceUnitController {
#Value("${remote.baseUrl}")
private String baseUrl = "http://localhost";
#Value("${remote.port}")
private String pushPort = "8080";
#Autowired
private HttpClientFactory httpClientFactory;
...
It seems that the httpClientFactory isn't there yet when the private fields are set, if I set a break point to inspect the value there is of course null set when the controller is created.
BUT, if I make a setter for the component and annotate the set-method instead of the private field the controller works as expected.
#Controller
public class EntranceUnitController {
#Value("${remote.baseUrl}")
private String baseUrl = "http://localhost";
#Value("${remote.port}")
private String pushPort = "8080";
private HttpClientFactory httpClientFactory;
#Autowired
public void setHttpClientFactory(HttpClientFactory httpClientFactory) {
this.httpClientFactory = httpClientFactory;
}
...
To me this is really annoying. Isn't the auto wiring injection for annotated values happening at the same time regardless injection point? I.e. why does it matter that the object is injected with a setter? I thought that private field injections are directly followed by constructs and setters, me start to think I'm wrong in that case...
Seems like your dependencies are in fact injected, you are just putting a breakpoint in the wrong moment (too early) and the dependencies aren't injected yet, despite class being already created.
Remember that, unless you are using constructor injection, the first place where you can use injected dependencies is #PostConstruct method:
#Controller
public class EntranceUnitController {
#Autowired
private HttpClientFactory httpClientFactory;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
httpClientFactory //should not be null
}