Suppose I have several components that depend on one service:
public interface MyService { ... }
// in package1
#Component
public class Package1Component1 {
#Autowired
private final MyService myService;
}
public class Package1Component2 {
#Autowired
private final MyService myService;
}
// in package 2
public class Package2Component1 {
#Autowired
private final MyService myService;
}
public class Package2Component2 {
#Autowired
private final MyService myService;
}
And I have two implementations of MyService:
#Service
public class MyServiceImpl1 implements MyService { ... }
#Service
public class MyServiceImpl2 implements MyService { ... }
And I want MyServiceImpl2 to be injected into all components in package2 and MyServiceImpl1 everywhere else
I don't want to use #Qualifier to resolve ambiguity as it will require to always specify it when you need to inject MyService and to change a lot of files when I need to switch to single implementation everywhere (MyServiceImpl2 is temporary implementation that should be used only in specific scope).
Is there any way to specify bean for scope (java package?), like in Angular I can override module providers (AuthService in this case):
#NgModule({
declarations: [LoginComponent, UserInfoComponent],
providers: [
{
provide: AuthService,
useClass: FacebookAuthService,
},
],
})
export class AuthModule {}
You can introduce your meta-annotation annotated with #Qualifier and use it.
Once you are ready to change, just change Qualifier on your meta annotation.
I think it's not really correct to co-relate Angular specificities with Spring, as they are simply two radically different infrastructures, in all aspects.
Why don't you want to use #Qualifier? for what reason? because, the problem you describe is exactly why people came up with #Qualifier implementation.
I don't want to use #Qualifier to resolve ambiguity as it will require to always specify it when you need to inject MyService and to change a lot of files when I need to switch to single implementation everywhere.
Not really. You can provide ID for your bean definition, and disregarding of what implementation you'll use later, same bean, with that same ID, will be injected wherever you'll qualify it to be injected. You will only swap the implementation class.
Also, package in Java, is not a scope for Beans. Package is facility for grouping a logically similar classes, and it can be considered as a scope, but for class and its members' accessibility/visibility, not for the beans.
Bean scopes have a different semantics, and you can read about them here.
The is another way to specify, that the bean should qualify as a candidate, if there are more than one implementations of a type you're injecting. It's #Primary; however, this #Primary will always override any other candidates, while with #Qualifier you can leverage more fine-grained control on what to inject where.
Related
I have a classA which implements an interfaceA, with a methodA, then I have a classB in which I call classA with an #Autowired to be able to use methodA, but it gives me a warning that I must create a method for classA. Why is this happening? Doesn't #Autowired work like this in this case? Should I just instantiate classA? Thank you very much for your answers.
ClassA
#RequiredArgsConstructor
public class RepositoryImpl implements IRepository {
#Autowired
private final TransactionDataMapper transactionDataMapper;
#Autowired
private SpringDataColminvoice springDataColminvoice;
#Override
public <S extends TransactionDto> S save(S s) {
Colm colm = transactionDataMapper.toEntity(s);
//methodA
springDataColminvoice.save(colm);
return null;
}
}
InterfaceA
public interface IRepository extends IRepository<TransactionDto, Integer> {}
ClassB
#Service
#RequiredArgsConstructor
public class ServiceImpl implements IInvoiceService {
#Autowired
private RepositoryImpl repositoryImpl;
#Override
public void save(CMessage cMessage) throws HandlerException {
try {
TransactionDto transactionDto = cMessage.getTransaction();
// methodA
repositoryImpl.save(transactionDto);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new HandlerException(e.getMessage());
}
}
}
Exception
Action:
***************************
APPLICATION FAILED TO START
***************************
Description:
Field RepositoryImpl in com.st.ms.yyu.d.binvoce.infraestructure.rest.spring.services.impl.InvoiceServiceImpl required a bean of type 'com.st.ms.yyu.d.binvoce.infraestructure.db.springdata.repository.impl.ServiceImpl' that could not be found.
The injection point has the following annotations:
- #org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired(required=true)
Action:
Consider defining a bean of type 'com.st.ms.yyu.d.binvoce.infraestructure.db.springdata.repository.impl.RepositoryImpl' in your configuration.
(posting this as an answer since I do not have enough reputation to comment)
As others have pointed out already, a code sample would help tremendously.
That being said, though, it sounds like you're missing implementation for "ClassA".
If you have an interface that "ClassA" implements, you have to implement the interface's methods in "ClassA" before you can use them.
I assume your code currently looks somewhat like this?
public interface InterfaceA {
void methodA();
}
public class ClassA implements InterfaceA {
}
public class ClassB {
#Autowired
ClassA classA; // Cannot use {#link InterfaceA#methodA} because the class does not implement the function
}
If this is your code, make sure you add an implementation for your "methodA()" function in "ClassA". Somewhat like so:
public class ClassA implements InterfaceA {
#Override
public void methodA() {
}
}
Additionally, in order to autowire in Spring (Boot), you need to ensure that the class you'd like to autowire is marked as such. You can autowire beans.
To make "ClassA" in the example eligible for autowiring, make sure to instantiate it either as:
A bean (using the #Bean annotation).
A component (using the #Component annotation).
A service (using the #Service annotation).
Any of the other annotations that may match your use case the best.
In our example, this would look somewhat like this:
#Component // Or #Service / whatever you may need
public class ClassA implements InterfaceA {
#Override
public void methodA() {
}
}
Hope you've found any of this helpful. All the best!
-T
As what I have understood, #Autowire means injecting the value/instance of the specific property where you put the annotation #Autowire. In this case, #Autowire only happens when there is defined/created Bean within your basePackage of your Spring Boot project that can match it, i.e. where your #Autowire referred to (meaning there is no conflict issue like ambiguity, etc. and the DataType(Class) can be implicitly casted). In your example, first you treat the IRepository and/or RepositoryImpl as Repository without using the #Repository annotation to inform the Spring Boot default configuration that this is a Repository bean. As you didn't put the POM.xml or posted the related code, I presumed you are creating your own repository class. I think it's much better to post your dependencies here.
But as what others pointed out. You need to create a bean that can match the #Autowired you've put on TransactDataManager & SpringDataColminvoice. You need also to inform the Spring Boot or register it that your class A is a Bean by annotating
#Bean - defining a regular bean,
#Component - a Component in the Project,
#Service - a Service in the Project,
#Repository - a Repository (if you're using Spring JPA), etc.
#<Other Annotations depending of what other Spring Project/Dependencies your using>
Since newer versions of Spring is moving to annotation based from XML mapping, we need to put proper annotation for each class/object that we want to be auto injected/instantiated from #Autowired using the above sample annotations depending on the role/purpose of your class/object is.
I suggest if you're not sure. Then create a typical bean using common annotation #Bean. So your class A might be
#Component //Insert proper Annotation for your class if necessary. This is just a sample
#RequiredArgsConstructor
public class RepositoryImpl implements IRepository {
#Autowired
private final TransactionDataMapper transactionDataMapper;
#Autowired
private SpringDataColminvoice
springDataColminvoice;//segunda
#Override
public <S extends TransactionDto> S save(S s) {
//Some implementation
}
#Bean
private TransactionDataMapper getTransactionDataMapper(<Some parameters if needed>){
return <an instance for TransactionDataManager>;
}
#Bean
private SpringDataColminvoice getSpringDataColmInvoice(<Some parameters if needed>){
return <an instance for SpringDataColminvoice>;
}
}
Note that 2 beans definition are optional if there are already a Beans define on outside class or if it was marked by other annotation like #Service, #Component or other proper annotations and the other one bean is just a reference parameter for the other bean in order to properly instantiated.
In your class B is the following:
public class ClassB {
#Autowired
ClassA classA;
/*Note: ignore this Bean definition if Class A is annotated with #Component,
#Service, or other proper #Annotation for Class A.
*/
#Bean
private ClassA getClassA(<Some Parameters if Needed>){
return <Instance of Class A>
}
}
Take note that, you don't need to put a Bean definition inside the Class B if you put a proper annotation for your Class A like #Component, #Service, etc.
I have a Spring application consisting of multiple modules. One of these modules requires certain Spring beans to be present in the context (it cannot run standalone as it does not have a complete context itself).
This module provides basic functionality that needs to be shared amongst many applications that customize this module by making the correct beans available (singleton or request scoped, depending on needs).
This works perfectly and we're very happy with this setup as it provides a seperation between core functionality and business specific logic.
My question is now, I have a class that can optionally be used to satisfy one of the depedencies. It is not annotated with #Component to prevent it being scanned, however I would like the projects to be able to choose to use this class or supply their own implementation.
The core module looks like this:
public interface AProvider;
#Component
public class AService {
#Inject private AProvider aProvider;
}
And it provides this implementation that can optionally be used:
public class DatabaseBasedAProvider implements AProvider {
#Inject private SomeOtherDependency dependency; // <-- this needs to be injected still if used!
}
An example project that uses the core module then must make sure that one bean of type AProvider is present on the context. This can be achieved like:
#Configuration
public class Configuration {
#Bean
AProvider getAProvider() {
return new OurOwnAProviderImplementation();
}
}
What I would like though is something like:
#BeanClass // <-- some annotation I made up
Class<AProvider> getAProviderClass() {
return DatabaseBasedAProvider.class; // <-- have spring inject this!
}
What I don't want is:
#Bean
AProvider getAProvider() {
return new DatabaseBasedAProvider( ... add dependencies here myself ... );
}
I have solved a case similar to yours (if I understand correctly), using the #Primary annotation. Might be something for you.
public interface AProvider { }
For every module to have some implementation of the interface, create a default implementation that is shared.
#Service
public class DefaultAProvider implements AProvider {}
Then, if some module wishes to use its own implementation, "override" the bean using #Primary.
#Primary
#Service
public class MyVerySpecialAProvider implements AProvider {}
Then, anytime you inject AProvider, Spring will pick the #Primary implementation.
An alternative will be to use #Profile, another alternative would be to annotate your AProvider classes with #Component in combination with #ConditionalOnProperty and document the different choices to your consumers.
Example
#Component
#ConditionalOnProperty(name = "my.aprovider.choice", havingValue = "database")
public class DatabaseBasedAProvider implements AProvider {
#Inject private SomeOtherDependency dependency; // <-- this needs to be injected still if used!
}
I've found a solution that allows me to decide at the client what class I want to use for AProvider.
It is not super nice, but it does mean I don't need to make specific changes to the code in the core module (as this module is supposed to be generic).
In a #Configuration class in the client's config I'm now doing this:
#Component
static class MyDatabaseBasedAProvider extends DatabaseBasedAProvider {
// No implementation
}
This makes Spring construct the class and handle all the injections. It could be shorter and it does require the class to be non-final but it works.
The client is now alerted if the bean is missing, is free to make their own implementation and free to pick one of the existing implementations if one suits their needs, without the core module having to decide before hand how AProvider might be supplied.
I noticed when using annotation for spring or spring mvc, some programmers give the annotation a name along with it. For example:
#Repository("customerRepository")
public class CustomerRepositoryImpl implements CustomerRepository{
}
I believe the class functioning the same without giving the #Repository a name. Would there be a situation that name the annotation useful?
It is mainly meant for solving ambiguity when performing an auto-scan and using #Autowired. I gave a thorough answer explaining about #Autowired in this answer which also explains about the need to name the beans.
Let's assume we have 2 classes that implement CustomerRepository:
#Repository
public class MyCustomerRepositoryImpl implements CustomerRepository {
}
#Repository
public class OtherCustomerRepositoryImpl implements CustomerRepository {
}
Let's now assume we have a class that uses #Autowired to inject a CustomerRepository:
public class SomeClass {
#Autowired
private CustomerRepository customerRepository;
}
When performing an auto-scan, you need to have a way to differentiate between them. Otherwise Spring would throw an exception saying that it can't tell which of the beans should be injected.
So we can now add a logical name to each implementation:
#Repository("myRepository")
public class MyCustomerRepositoryImpl implements CustomerRepository {
}
#Repository("otherRepository")
public class OtherCustomerRepositoryImpl implements CustomerRepository {
}
And now you can help Spring solve the ambiguity as follows:
public class SomeClass {
#Autowired
#Qualifier("myRepository")
private CustomerRepository customerRepository;
}
It helps to convert the entity into a Spring bean, if autodetected.
From the official doc here:-
The value may indicate a suggestion for a logical component name,
to be turned into a Spring bean in case of an autodetected component.
The AnnotationBeanNameGenerator is responsible for picking a name for your beans. If you specify a name you can use a different convention for your bean names than what would otherwise be generated based on the class name.
Auto-generated bean names are not fool proof; two classes with the same name can cause a duplicate bean definition, as can two classes inheriting the same interface.
The use of explicit names also ensures that code refactoring does not implicitly break the bean wiring.
For example, I have
#Service
public class UserSerice {
#Autowired
private HouseService houseService;
}
and
#Service
public class HouseService {
#Autowired
private UserSerice userService;
}
How will Spring autowire this?
And is this a good practice to configure beans this way?
Circular dependencies (spring-framework-reference):
For example: Class A requires an instance of class B through
constructor injection, and class B requires an instance of class A
through constructor injection...throws a
BeanCurrentlyInCreationException.
it is not recommended...
One possible solution is to edit the source code of some classes to be
configured by setters rather than constructors...
PLUS:
I debugged the circular dependencies in setter way. The sequence seems that:
-> Start to create bean A
-> Start to create bean B
-> Inject A to B, although A is not created fully from perspective of Spring lifecycle
-> Bean B creation finish
-> Inject bean B to A
-> Bean A created
Since it's not a constructor injection, spring can safely instantiate both objects and then satisfy their dependencies. Architecture-wise such case is so called 'code smell'. It's the sign that something is wrong in the composition. Maybe you need to move logic, maybe you need to introduce third class, it depends.
Google for these terms
Flyweight pattern
Circular dependency in java
Just like 2 java objects can refer each other , it is perfectly valid to have such configuration.
Keep calm and use #Lazy
you can break the circular dependency using the #Lazy annotation()
#Service
public class UserSerice {
#Autowired
#Lazy
private HouseService houseService;
}
you can use the HouseService as it is (no change :) )
#Service
public class HouseService {
#Autowired
private UserSerice userService;
}
further solutions : https://www.baeldung.com/circular-dependencies-in-spring#2-use-lazy
I've started to use Spring recently. And I'm making spring mvc project. So my question is if it's preferred to make interfaces and autowire it with particular implementation by spring or just use class instances in case when I have only one implementation of that interface?
For example:
#Controller
public class MyController {
#Autowired
MyService myService;
#RequestMap("/")
public String mainPage() {
...
}
}
or
#Controller
public class MyController {
#RequestMap("/")
public String mainPage() {
MyService myService = new MyServiceImpl();
...
}
}
if there is only one implementation of MyService interface?
In most cases you should go with injection because:
It eases unit testing (you can inject mock or different implementation)
Spring can inject some dependencies into MyServiceImpl as well because it manages this object
You are not coupling your controller with particular implementation
Even if your service does not have an interface, because of the second reason you should consider injection.
The only case when you might want to skip Spring is when the class does not have any dependencies and is stateless. But most likely such a class is a utility that does not need any an instance at all because it has only static members.
It will depend on whether MyService is a bean that holds a state or not. If MyService does not hold state, then you don't need to create new instances and you can let Spring to inject it having the advantages above described