I was just starting to get comfortable with MVC when somebody mentioned IoC containers to me, and now I feel like I've fallen a few thousand feet and need to climb back up again. I was tempted to just ignore them, but then I read up on the Component Lifestyle. This seems like a big deal to me, as explained, uncommited changes to database updates might leak across requests if my repositories Lifestyle is set to Singleton instead of PerWebRequest.
So my question...is there a way to create the Component Lifestyle affect without using IoC containers, or is that the only option?
You can always create an implementation as a Singleton. However when speaking about a Repository I don't think there is a need. This is not the real purpose to using an IoC though. Using the IoC decouples the user of your code from the implementation itself. It makes testing easier as you can swap things in and out as you need too. Also, in my case I find it very useful for other purposes as well. Take caching for example. In my local dev I use Lucene.NET to provide my cache implementation with a disk based cache. Then when I push to my development and staging platforms I use the standard .net cache implementation. Then when I push to production I might use a Velocity or MemCached implementation. I don't have to do anything fancy to get from point A to point B since I am using StructureMap (my preferred IoC container).
It seems to be that Component Lifestyle is more of a design decision than an IoC decision. All three of the methods mentioned here for managing the life of an object can be done without IoC...but that might be an interesting side effect of an IoC (in some cases).
Related
When people mention that Spring is a lightweight containter compared to other frameworks, do they mean? That it occupies less memory in the system or it does not have the operations like start stop that we have for EJB containers and it doesn't use a special container?
What makes Spring a lightweight container?
Whether it is "lightweight" or "heavyweight", it is all about comparison. We consider Spring to be lightweight when we are comparing to normal J2EE container. It is lightweight in the sense of extra memory footprint for the facilities provided (e.g. Transaction Control, Life Cycle, Component dependency management)
However, there are sometimes other criteria to compare for the "weight" of a container, e.g. intrusiveness in design and implementation; facilities provided etc.
Ironically, Spring is sometimes treated as heavy weight container when compared to other POJO-based container, like Guice and Plexus.
Spring calls itself 'lightweight' because you don't need all of Spring to use part of it. For example, you can use Spring JDBC without Spring MVC.
Spring provides various modules for different purposes; you can just inject dependencies according to your required module. That is, you don't need to download or inject all dependencies or all JARs to use a particular module.
If you want to run a Java EE application, you can't just create a small application that will run on its own. You will need a Java EE application server to run your application, such as Glassfish, WebLogic or WebSphere. Most application servers are big and complex pieces of software, that are not trivial to install or configure.
You don't need such a thing with Spring. You can use Spring dependency injection, for example, in any small, standalone program.
I think "lightweight" is mostly a buzz-word. It's meaning is highly subjective and based on context. It can mean "low memory footprint", it can be low execution overhead, low start-up overhead. People also use it to differentiate between some perceived level of complexity and/or learning-curve. In any case, it's assuredly relative as there is no defined point on any scale where "light" becomes "heavy" in terms of "weight".
I personally think it's a dangerous word since it has no real, quantifiable meaning. It's something people throw into architecture proposals to beef up the "pro" section of a certain framework they want to use anyway. If you see or hear it being used in any such situation, it's a perfect opportunity to ask "what does that mean?". If you get an angry or frustrated response (combined with rolling of eyes and shaking of head), it means that the person has decided on a certain architecture, but hasn't managed to formulate coherent or objective reasons for it.
EDIT: not sure I would categorize spring as a "container" either, but that's a similar apples and oranges discussion. I'd call it a framework.
Spring is light weight becouse other J2ee container especially EJB2.1 require more configuration, It can have lot of do nothing code to ,it have complex directory structure for packing applications, overall it took extra memory;on other hand spring minimizes all this things.so it light weight.
I think one can also say that spring is light weight because it uses POJO(Plain old java object) .POJO class does not require to implement,extends technologies specific API(Interfaces,Classes) or it is not bounded to any technology specific API
I know the title may seem like apples & oranges, but hear me out... :)
I'm building the architecture of an MVC app and considering what to use for the core of the controller / services. This stack will also serve as a RESTful API which will be equally as important as the UI.
I'm narrowing down my stack to be built with either Grails or JAX-RS (at this point I've ruled out other options and am not super interested in expanding this list). Either way I'll be using Groovy, and my model and views will be virtually unaffected by this choice, so that further levels some of the differences between the two. Here are the pros/cons that I've been pondering and was wondering if anyone had any other inputs or caveat experiences.
Grails
I am not going to use a ton of the built-in Grails features (GSP/SiteMesh, Hibernate, nearly all plugins), so I'm concerned that Grails might be a bit heavy for my purposes
I'm concerned that I won't have enough control over my ability to handle the REST API since it is very view-centric
I've seen inconsistencies in the quality of plugins to the point where I'm not sure I consider them much of a 'pro'
I love the convention-over-configuration & edit-and-refresh, to the point where I'd probably want to wire up something similar if I go with JAX-RS
I like the grails command line for everything it streamlines, but I'm concerned that it might get in my way since I'm not using as much of the stack
I like the scaffolding but since I'm not using Hibernate or GSP/SiteMesh it might not mesh well
JAX-RS
JAX-RS is made for REST. This will make my RESTful API really a snap to implement as I have complete control
Groovy is an important part of what makes Grails shine, so I'll benefit from that even in JAX-RS
I love how JAX-RS doesn't automatically pull in a bunch of other things so I can have more control of what components are in/out
unfortunately since it doesn't pull in everything else anything that I end up needing will require more work, whereas Grails might have a plugin
the grails command line and scaffolding will be missed; perhaps Maven can fill some gaps
It seems like the capabilities of each for creating actions and routing are pretty similar (although the implementation styles are different). In fact there are other SO questions wish touch upon this so I'm not too concerned.
I wrote a small REST service prototype in several frameworks last year (namely Grails, Play!, Spring MVC, Jersey, Restlet). My feeling about Grails in this concern was that although Grails supports REST style architecture, it isn't really made for it. I don't want to get religious here, so if you only want to map resources to URLs and HTTP verbs your fine, but if you want to dig deeper into REST with tight control over return codes, location headers, etc. you might still be able to do it with Grails, but it is probably better supported in a pure REST framework.
Grails also comes with a lot of dependencies, which might not be a problem if you're starting on a green field, but can cause problems when you have to integrate it with existing legacy components or frameworks.
From the two used REST frameworks, I liked Jersey more, as it just worked in my case and the documentation was good (although a bit focused on Maven and Netbeans).
Yeah, it does seem heavy to build on a MVC framework when you're not going to use the model or the view. While the autowiring and simplified configuration is super nice, Grails would still be providing a lot of extra stuff that you don't need.
I'd personally take the lighter approach and leave Grails out, using any standalone libraries or writing custom code which provide the features that you do want. There's a number of container projects listed on the Groovy site, perhaps Spring or one of the alternatives would add some value to your architecture.
I am a big fan of Dependency Injection and the Play Framework, but am having trouble seeing how the two could be exploited together.
There are modules for Spring and Guice, but the way that Play works makes it hard for me to see how DI could be beneficial beyond some quite simple cases.
A good example of this is that Play expects JPA work to be done by static methods associated with the entity in question:
#Entity
Person extends Model {
public static void delete(long id) {
em().find(id).remove();
}
//etc
}
So there is no need for a PersonManager to be injected into controllers in the way it might for a Spring J2EE application. Instead a controller just calls Person.delete(x).
Obviously, DI is beneficial when there are interfaces with external systems, as the concrete implementation can be mocked for testing etc., but I don't see much benefit for a self-contained Play application.
Does anyone have any good examples? Does anyone use it to inject a Manager-style class into Controllers so that a number of operations can be done within the same transaction, for example?
I believe from this sentence you wrote:
"Does anyone have any good examples? Does anyone use it to inject a Manager-style class into Controllers so that a number of operations can be done within the same transaction, for example?"
that before answering the DI question I should note something: transactions are managed automatically by Play. If you check the model documentation you will see that a transaction is automatically created at the beginning of a request, and committed at the end. You can roll it back via JPA or it will be rolled back if an exception is raised.
I mention this because from the wording of your sentence I'm not sure if you are aware of this.
Now, on DI itself, in my (not-so-extensive) experience with DI, I've seen it used mainly to:
Load the ORM (Hibernate) factory/manager
Load Service classes/DAOs into another class to work with them
Sure, there are more scenarios, but these probably cover most of the real usage. Now:
The first one is irrelevant to Play as you get access to your JPA object and transaction automatically
The second one is quite irrelevant too as you mainly work with static methods in controllers. You may have some helper classes that need to be instantiated, and some may even belong to a hierarchy (common interface) so DI would be beneficial. But you could just as well create your won factory class and get rid of the jars of DI.
There is another matter to consider here: I'm not so sure about Guice, but Spring is not only DI, it also provides a lot of extra functionalities which depend on the DI module. So maybe you don't want to use DI in Play, but you want to take advantage of the Spring tools and they will use DI, albeit indirectly (via xml configuration).
The problem in my humble opinion on the static initialization approach of Play! is that it makes testing harder. Once you approach the HTTP vs Object Orientation problem with static members and objects that carries the HTTP message data (request and response) you make a trade of having to create new instances for each request by the ability of make your objects loosely coupled with the rest of your project classes.
One good example of a different design are servlets, it also extends a base class but it approaches the problem with a single instance creation (by default, because there are configurations that enable more instances).
I believe that maybe a mix of the two approaches would be better, having a singleton of each controller would give the same characteristics of a full static class and would allow dependency injection of some kinds of object. But not the objects with request or session scope, once the controller would need to be created every new request. Moreover it would improve testability by inverting the control of dependency injection, thus allowing arbitrary injection points.
Dependencies would be injected by the container or by a test, probably using mocks for the heavy stuff that much likely would already have been tested before.
In my point of view, this static model pushes the developer away from testing controllers because extending FunctionalTest starts the application server, thus paying the price of heavy objects like repositories, services, crawlers, http clients, etc. I don't want to wait a lot of objects to be bootstrapped just to check if some code was executed on the controller, tests should be quick and clear to make developers love them as their programming assistant/guide.
DI is not the ultimate solution to use everywhere... Don't use DI just because you have it in your hands... In play, you don't need DI to develop controllers/models etc... but sometimes it could be a nice design: IMO, you could use it if you have a service with a well know interface but you would like to develop this service outside Play and test it outside play and even test your play project with just a dummy service in order NOT to depend on the full service implementation. Therefore DI can be interesting: you plug the service loosely in play. In fact, this is the original use case for DI afaik...
I just wrote a blog post about setting up a Play Framework application with Google Guice. http://geeks.aretotally.in/dependency-injection-with-play-framework-and-google-guice
I see some benefits, especially when a component of your application requires a different behavior based on a certain context or something like that. But I def believe people should be selective about what goes into a DI context.
It shows again that you should only use dependencies injection if you really have a benefit. If you have complex services it's useful, but in many cases it's not. Read the chapter about models in the play-documentation.
So to give you an example where you can use DI with play. Perhaps you must make a complex calculation, or you create a pdf with a report-engine. There I think DI can be useful, specially for testing. There I think the guice-module and spring-module are useful and can help you.
Niels
As of a year and some change later, Play 2.1 now has support for dependency injection in controllers. Here's their demo project using Spring 3, which lays it out pretty clearly.
Edit: here's another example using Guice and Scala, if that's your poison.
Do you prefer the clean approach of an AOP cache layer on top of your methods (any DAO or service method) OR do you prefer the total control approach of injecting a cache instance wherever you need?
I understand AOP gives you loose coupling and separation of concerns, but not so much flexibility, unless you are coding the method interceptors yourself.
I tend to like the IoC approach, because a cache instance can be easily mocked if you need to and with an instance of the cache you have total control and flexibility.
It is like logging. Who actually uses AOP for application wide logging?
This is the question about should we use "real" AOP at all (by "real" I mean quantification and obliviousness, so that you can enable aspects globally and 100% transparently for the system). My opinion is to avoid that 100% transparent solutions every time you can. If you're at the development stage, it will be better to design your system in the way that don't force you to do tricks like AOP weaving at intermediate code level.
At the other hand, it will be quite disturbing to write caching concern for every component/interface you need, no matter how you'll do it. The most obvious way which came to my mind is to have a caching Decorator class for each cached class - one thing done many times.
So the path I will try to follow is to have an idea of AOP done using some IoC extension based on dynamic proxying. When fetching an object from IoC, container can check in its configuration should the cache be applied for given type and if so, create an interface-based dynamic proxy with caching. This solution is not forcing you to write a lot of similar code and is less confusing than "real" AOP by its visibility in the source code. There are some implementations like this, but you haven't specified any language, so I can't offer any.
Is inversion of control essentially just retrieving a set of already instantiated objects? In theory. I guess more granular details as implemented by IoC frameworks like Spring have a lot more functionality, but in theory it seems like IoC containers operate like a collection of instantiated beans (in the Java world) and then you get access to those beans. Almost like you would with a collection Singleton objects?
It's partly getting hold of singletons in practice, yes. Some beans will be instantiated multiple times, whenever they're needed (depending on the configuration), but often you can make do with single instances - particularly if they're stateless once configured. I like the idea of data flowing "through" an application's plumbing after it's been properly hooked up.
The benefit is that the "singletoneity" is only present in the configuration, not in the code, which makes the system more testable and flexible. The difference in terms of how you view (and expose) the dependencies with your app is huge.
Although the answer has already been accepted, I will elaborate a little more:
Initially spring was mostly about singleton management. with the introduction of custom scopes came the web specific scopes and the ability to create your own custom scopes. Leaning on AOP features this also allows you to "stay singleton" for as long as possible, because it uses a technique known as scope proxying. This can let you introduce a scoped object right in the middle of a chain of singletons - a feature you'd often be using threadlocals for.
So I'd say it's about tight control of instance creation, to make sure everything is done only the required number of times, and preferably only the construction that is necessary is done for each request. Singleton management was the old days.