I understand the how, but can't seem formally shape the definitions.
As known DI can be done via constructor or setter or interface.
I am confused about the latest one -interface based DI, is it used in Spring?
UPDATE: I gave bad examle in here, which led to wrong understanding.
To fix it up:
Say we have setter and in setter we inject interface implemented by some class. Is that considered DI via setter or interface?
http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html#UsingAServiceLocator
this article divides DI on:
"There are three main styles of dependency injection. The names I'm using for them are Constructor Injection, Setter Injection, and Interface Injection. If you read about this stuff in the current discussions about Inversion of Control you'll hear these referred to as type 1 IoC (interface injection), type 2 IoC (setter injection) and type 3 IoC (constructor injection). I find numeric names rather hard to remember, which is why I've used the names I have here."
Else Service Locator pattern used for IoC, is it the one that actually makes possible #Autowired? - ie that not all classes explicitly need to be declared in xml for DI, as we can declare them as #Repository or #Controller or alike again if I recall correctly.
Thanks,
Autowiring an interface means wire a bean implementing that interface. This relies on an implementation actually existing in the bean factory.
#Autowired
UserService us; // wire a bean implementing UserService
--
#Service
public class UserServiceImpl implements UserService {
// the #Service annotation causes this implementation of UserService to
// be made available for wiring in the bean factory.
}
Worth noting is that if you wire by interface, Spring will expect there to exist one and exactly one bean in the bean factory implementing that interface. If more than one bean is found, an error will be thrown and you will have to specify which bean to wire (using the #Qualifier annotation).
EDIT:
When wiring, you can either wire a member variable or a setter method.
#Autowired
UserService us;
--
#Autowired
public void setUserService(UserService us) {
this.us = us;
}
These two produce the same result. The difference is that in the former, Spring will use reflection to set the variable us to a bean implementing UserService. In the latter, Spring will invoke the setUserService method, passing the same UserService imlementation.
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 use #Autowired annotation like this:
#Autowired
private MyService1 myService1;
#Autowired
private MyService2 myService2;
But new Intellij IDE 2016(3) suggests and proposes to replace:
private final MyService1 myService1;
private final MyService2 myService2;;
#Autowired
public MyClass(MyService1 myService1, MyService2 myService2) {
this.myService1= myService1;
this.myService2= myService2;
}
Tell me what is the difference and what is right?
Both approaches are correct.
From docs
Spring included, provide a mechanism for ensuring that all dependencies are defined when you use Setter Injection, but by using Constructor Injection, you assert the requirement for the dependency in a container-agnostic manner"
#Autowire at constructor level guarantees that you will have all the required dependencies when your spring container finally creates your bean for that class.
It is suggecting to using constructor inject instead of Setter inject. For nomal use, there is no big different.
We usually advise people to use constructor injection for all mandatory collaborators and setter injection for all other properties. Again, constructor injection ensures all mandatory properties have been satisfied, and it is simply not possible to instantiate an object in an invalid state (not having passed its collaborators). In other words, when using constructor injection you do not have to use a dedicated mechanism to ensure required properties are set (other than normal Java mechanisms).
Here is an article to explain it Setter injection versus constructor injection and the use of #Required
Also you can get quite a lot question/answer in stackoverflow.
Setter DI vs. Constructor DI in Spring?
Yes, it is used correctly. This is called the Constructor Injection.
Constructor Injection allows you to use the final modifiers of your choice and to easily pass your own not managed by Spring objects (mocks, for example).
If you are not forced to using field injection, choose constructor injection.
I know and understand constructor based injection. But, the autowiring modes confuse me.
1) I have read that default mode for autowiring is 'no autowiring' i.e. We have to manually set the properties in xml file. But, isn't xml based configuration a type of autowiring? How can it be considered 'No autowiring'?
2) Other modes for autowiring are i) byName ii) byType iii)constructor iv) auto-detect. Am i correct to assume the following:
a) When using xml configuration based autowiring, the default mode is 'byName'(i.e. I have to keep the name of property reference the same as the name of the bean which is being used as a property.)
b) When using Annotations, default mode is 'byType'( Regardless of the place the #Autowired keyword is placed i.e on the setter, on the constructor or on the property, it will search the type of the property being autowried)
3) What is the difference between constructor based injection and 'constructor' mode of autowiring?(I have read that constructor mode means it applies byType mode on all the constructor arguments, but how is it different from placing #Autowired keyword on the constructor)
4) I know that to enable autowired mode byName in annotations, in the bean definition in the xml file, I have to use " autowire = 'byName' ". But, suppose I am using Annotations only config( using #Component, and no bean definitions in the xml ), and I want to use byName autowire mode, then what is the way of doing that?
I think you are a bit confused. First, you need to understand dependency injection (see here). There is ton of info about DI but in short, it means some third party (e.g spring IOC) passes the dependencies to the objects rather than the objects to create/obtain the references themselves. This could happen either through constructor or setter. For instance, consider constructor DI
class B{
}
class A{
private B b;
public A(B b){
this.b = b;
}
}
Some third party will inject an instance of class B into A rather class A create a reference to B itself. Very often you would use an interface so class A wouldn't even know what object will be injected into it.
Now in Spring there are different ways to configure these associations between the objects (the example above). You can either use XML, Java Config or Autowiring. They are independent but do the same stuff.
In both XML and JAVA config you need to configure the dependencies explicitly - either in xml file or having a #Configuration class for the JAVA Config and annotating the beans with #Bean. The autowiring is different. There you create simple POJOs which you annotate with #Component, #Controller, #Service or #Repository. They will be automatically registered as beans via component scanning. With autowiring you don't need to explicitly configure the dependencies in XML file or JAVA Config class. You can do it in code directly. For instance, if we have to compare java config vs autowiring using the previous example
Java Config (explicit config in a config class)
#Bean
public A getA(){
return new A(new B());
}
Autowiring (implicit - done in code)
#Component
class B{
}
#Component
class A{
private B b;
#Autowired
public A(B b){
this.b = b;
}
}
In the latter we autowire class B into class A (they both will be registered as beans due to #Component annotation) without having explicitly defined this association in an xml file or java config class. I hope it makes sense.
If you have to specify the bean names in the xml, its not happening automatically, hence its not autowiring.
With autowiring spring will figure out what bean to inject even though it may not be explicitly written.
When using xml configuration based autowiring, the default mode is 'byName'
When using Annotations, the ordering that happens depends on the annotation used as there are a few that can be used. #Autowire #Resource #Inject.
When using #Component, the default wiring is of type. The method below will resolve on any autowiring needs for a Service object.
#Bean
public Service getMyService(){
return new Service();
}
If there are multiple #Bean methods that return a Service you will get an error.
If you wanted to do wire via name while using #Component you would add the #Qualifier("nameToUse") annotation to the variable. It would find an #Bean annotated method called getNameToUse().
#Autowired
#Qualifier("nameToUse")
private Service myService;
I have some experience in Spring Framework. Spring usually do the DI using the constructor injection or setter injection. This concept I am comfortable. Now, in addition to this, I have seen the Spring do DI like this:
#Autowired
DataSource myData;
OR
#Resouce(name="someName")
SomeDependency dependency;
What mechanism do Spring utilise when it uses annotations to do the DI? Does Spring use constructor or setter injection in these cases or is annotation driven approach altogether a different way of injecting the dependencies?
Any explanation in simple worlds would be of great help.
You can do setter injection and constructor injection by #Autowired means.
#Autowired
private Person person;
#Autowired
public Customer(Person person) {
this.person = person;
}
By default autowired inject beans by TYPE. Behind the scene it makes injection via java reflection mechanism. So you can do the same things(that you've done with xml config) with annotation config.
In addition want to add that constructor injection is more preferable(except cases where there are to much arguments).
Main advantage of constructor injection:
You can't avoid passing arguments to constructor and create bean without them.
So in most all cases you want dependency to be injected, while setter injection doesn't guarantee it(you can get this annoying NPE that appears during wrong setter injection).
Specific rules of autowired using :
http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/4.2.7.RELEASE/javadoc-api/org/springframework/beans/factory/annotation/Autowired.html
i have a little trouble in Spring with two component of a service.
I have this component:
#Component
public class SmartCardWrapper
and this one:
#Component
public class DummySmartCardWrapper extends SmartCardWrapper
The service autowire both but spring fails due this expection:
org.springframework.beans.factory.NoSuchBeanDefinitionException: No unique bean of type [com.cinebot.smartcard.SmartCardWrapper] is defined: expected single matching bean but found 2: [dummySmartCardWrapper, smartCardWrapper]
Why it doesn't use class names?
That's one of the most basic concepts of Spring - Inversion of Control.
You don't need to declare your dependencies using their implementation types (to avoid coupling with implementation). You can declare them using interfaces or superclasses instead, and make Spring find the proper implementation class in the context.
In other words, bean are not distinguished by their implementation classes, because you may want to change implementation class of a bean without changing the beans that depend on it. If you want to distinguish between different beans of the same type, use logical bean names instead:
#Autowired #Qualifier("smartCardWrapper")
private SmartCardWrapper smardCardWrapper;
#Autowired #Qualifier("dummySmartCardWrapper")
private SmartCardWrapper dummySmardCardWrapper;