Implemented a strategy pattern very simple with the help of Spring Boot:
I have an interface:
public interface IOneStrategy {
void executeTheThing();
}
I have an implementation of the strategy One like this:
#Service("FIRST")
public class OneStrategyFirst implements IOneStrategy {
#Override
public void executeTheThing() {
System.out.println("OneStrategyFirst.executeTheThing");
}
}
I have a class which consumes the injected implementations:
#Service
public class ExecuteStrategyOne {
private Map<String, IOneStrategy> strategies;
public void executeStrategyOne(String name) {
if (!strategies.containsKey(name)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("The key " + name + " does not exist.");
}
strategies.get(name).executeTheThing();
}
}
and those implementations will be injected by Spring boot automatically by using the name FIRST, 'SECOND' etc. (assuming that this is simply a String etc. works very well.).
But now I want to implement another strategy via second interface:
public interface ITwoStrategy {
void executeTheThing();
}
and the executing service for the strategy:
#Service
public class ExecuteStrategyTwo {
private Map<String, ITwoStrategy> strategies;
...
}
and now the problematic part, because my application uses the same name which should be made part of the key of the above map I want to use the following:
#Service("FIRST")
public class TwoStrategyFirst implements ITwoStrategy {
#Override
public void executeTheThing() {
System.out.println("TwoStrategyFirst.executeTheThing");
}
}
This will of course result into an exception based on the duplicate bean name. The name FIRST is really needed to make the difference between the implementation.
I already found things about #Qualifier which I could use instead of #Service(FIRST)
#Service
#Qualifier(FIRST)
public class TwoStrategyFirst implements ITwoStrategy {
#Override
public void executeTheThing() {
System.out.println("TwoStrategyFirst.executeTheThing");
}
}
which unfortunately does not inject the classes into the map by using the name of the qualifier just by the name of the class which is not what I intended to do.
Does exist a solution to get the key of the map in the strategy execution the same as with the #Service("FIRST")?
I could use a solution via using the Qualifier annotation like this:
#Service
#Qualifier(FIRST)
public class TwoStrategyFirst implements ITwoStrategy {
...
}
And based on that there is a more or less easy solution via a bit of code:
#Service
public class ExecuteStrategyTwo {
private Map<String, ITwoStrategy> strategies;
public ExecuteStrategyOne(List<ITwoStrategy> strategies) {
this.strategies = strategies.stream()
.collect(
Collectors.toMap(k -> k.getClass().getDeclaredAnnotation(Qualifier.class).value(), Function.identity()));
}
This will inject all implementation into the list of the constructor and will be translated into the map by using the qualifier annotation.
Related
I want all the Service classes in my backend to have CRUD methods.
For that purpose, I thought of creating an interface:
public interface ServiceCRUD {
public Object save(Object object);
...
}
And then on my service, implement it:
#Service
public class SampleService implements ServiceCRUD {
#Autowired
private SampleRepository repository;
#Override
public Sample save(Sample sample) {
return repository.save(sample);
}
...
}
I haven't touched Java in a while, but if I recall correctly, every object extend Object, so why is it that I can't use Object to have the service accept all the entities I might have?
Best regards
You can achieve such scenario using Generics
interface ServiceCRUD {
public < E > void save(E object);
}
class Sample {
private String name = "Joe";
#Override
public String toString() {
return "hello"+name;
}
}
class SampleService implements ServiceCRUD {
#Override
public < Sample > void save(Sample sample) {
System.out.print(sample.toString());
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new SampleService().save(new Sample());
}
}
This is just an example ,you can extend it as per your use case.
See working here
Your interface declares that one is possible to save Object, i. e. any object. But your implementation declares that it cat get only Sample, that's why you get compilation error.
You should go with genetic and let each implementation to declare what kind of object it can deal with. I strongly suggest to have a look at spring data project. It will save you a lot if time
I have ShoppingList service which is responsible for generating shopping list and a IngredientConverter service which is a helping tool for converting objects. My current implementation looks like this
#Service
#AllArgsConstructor
public class ShoppingListService {
private final RecipeService recipeService;
private final IngredientConverter ingredientConverter;
public ShoppingList generateShoppingList(List<UUID> uuidsOfRecipes) {
List<Recipe> recipes = recipeService.getAllByIDIn(uuidsOfRecipes);
ShoppingList shoppingList = ShoppingList.empty();
for (Recipe recipe : recipes) {
shoppingList.addIngredients(recipe.getIngredients());
}
shoppingList.finishAddition(ingredientConverter);
return shoppingList;
}
}
#RequiredArgsConstructor
public class ShoppingList {
#Getter
private final List<IngredientQuantity> optimizedList;
private final Map<Ingredient, Integer> ingredientAmountMap;
public static ShoppingList empty() {
return new ShoppingList(new ArrayList<>(), new HashMap<>());
}
public void addIngredients(List<IngredientQuantity> ingredients) { ... }
public void addIngredient(IngredientQuantity ingredientQuantity) { ... }
public void finishAddition(IngredientConverter ingredientConverter) {
for (Ingredient ingredient : ingredientAmountMap.keySet()) {
IngredientQuantity ingredientQuantity = ingredientConverter.convertWithAmount(
ingredient.getName(),
ingredientAmountMap.get(ingredient),
ingredient.getUnit());
optimizedList.add(ingredientQuantity);
}
}
}
#Service
public class IngredientConverter {
public IngredientQuantity convertWithAmount(String name, int amount, Unit unit) { ... }
}
Is there a better strategy for providing IngredientConverter service to this class? Could I Autowire it somehow despite ShoppingList being POJO class? Should ShoppingList be marked as Component maybe? Not sure what is the best approach.
You cannot autowire service class into POJO. Autowire can be done only within spring managed classes. I can see that ShoppingList is not a spring managed class. Adding #Component will also not be ideal solution. AFAIK, The best solution to use here would be mapStruct. mapStruct can be used to map fields between entity and POJO. And in cases where any field has to be calculated separately, you can write your custom logic and autowire services. Below are steps
Add mapStruct library to pom.xml
Add below mapper class to your project. componentModel="spring" tells the system that this mapper is managed by spring.
All the fields that have same name will be automapped.
For fields which require conversions, you can write #BeforeMapping
Mapper(componentModel="spring")
public abstract class ShoppingListMapper
{
#Autowired
IngredientConverter ingredientConverter; //autowire method you use.
public abstract shoppingListToShoppingListDTO(ShoppingList shoppingList) throws Exception;
public abstract List<ShoppingList> mapShoppingListsToDTOs(List<ShoppingList> shoppingLists) throws Exception;
#BeforeMapping
public void convertLogic(ShoppingList la, #MappingTarget ShoppingListDTO slDto) throws Exception
{
//your logic to set required shoppinglist field using converter
}
}
If this example is not clear, you can refer to web for various mapstruct examples. Let me know if you need further help
Has anyone seen a pattern whereby Java constructor parameters are created using a DTO object and then injected into the class using Spring? I believe it is an anti-pattern but am curious if there is a reasonable case where it could be used.
In my mind the ideal thing to do is refactor the code so the need for the single constructor object is redundant.
What's everyones thoughts?
My particular example is of the form:
#Service
public class MyClass {
private MyClassConstructorDto constructorDependencyContainer;
#Autowired
public MyClass(MyClassConstructorDto constructorDependencyContainer) {
this.constructorDependencyContainer = constructorDependencyContainer;
}
public void doSomething() {
constructorDependencyContainer.getCoolDependency().performThing();
}
}
with supporting class
#Component
public class MyClassConstructorDto {
private CoolDependency coolDependency;
public MyClassConstructorDto(CoolDependency coolDependency) {
this.coolDependency = coolDependency;
}
public CoolDependency getCoolDependency() {
return coolDependency;
}
}
i have the following setup:
#Applicationscoped
#Transactional(txtype.Requires_new)
Public class querybean {
#Inject ExternalSysrltem externalSystemProxy;
Public Handle gethandleByKey(String key) {
return new Handle(/*do external Systems Query, returns an ExternalHandle Object*/)
}
Public static class Handle {
ExternalHandle eh;
/*protected so that User of class cannot Instantiate it otherwise that by getHandleByKey()*/
Protected Handle(ExternalHandle arg) {
This.eh = arg;
}
Public String getHandleInfo() {
Return This.eh.getName() + "/" + this.eh.getState()..;
/*generally wrap the ExternallHandle with businesslogic to hide direct access to the complex ExternalService's Interface*/
}
}
}
Can I get Handle to be a Managed Bean that can be annotated with #Transactional and still create it in the getHandleByKey Method at Runtime by querying the external System?
A static inner class can be a bean according the the spec.
In your example it is not a bean due to its constructor.
As said in comments you could use a producer, but a produced bean can't be intercepted (with #Transaction here)
If you want to keep your pattern, you'll have to create a very complex extension since it should work at low level to ensure interceptor will be activated.
I suggest that you go for something simpler by deporting your ExternalHandle resolution in Handle Bean, allowing you to use a String to construct it.
First create a qualifier with a non binding member to transmit information to your constructor.
#Target({TYPE, METHOD, PARAMETER, FIELD})
#Retention(RUNTIME)
#Documented
#Qualifier
public #interface Keyed {
#Nonbinding
String key();
}
Then create a literal for your annotation to allow creation of an annotation instance with a given key value.
public class KeyedLiteral extends AnnotationLiteral<Keyed> implements Keyed {
private final String key;
public KeyedLiteral(String key) {
this.key = key;
}
#Override
public String key() {
return key;
}
}
Using programmatic lookup and InjectionPoint to transmit your key value. Your code will be like:
#Applicationscoped
#Transactional(txtype.Requires_new)
Public class querybean {
#Inject
#Any
Instance<Handle> handles;
Public Handle gethandleByKey(String key) {
return instances.select(new KeyedLiteral(key)).get()
}
#Dependent
#Transactional
#Keyed("") //enforce the presence of the annotation for the constructor
Public static class Handle {
ExternalHandle eh;
// needed to make the bean proxyable (mandatory for the interceptor bound))
Protected Handle() {}
#Inject
Protected Handle(InjectionPoint ip, ExternalSysrltem externalSystem) {
String key=ip.getAnnotated().getAnnotation(Keyed.class).key();
eh = /*do external Systems Query, returns an ExternalHandle Object from key and externalSystem*/
}
Public String getHandleInfo() {
Return This.eh.getName() + "/" + this.eh.getState()..;
/*generally wrap the ExternallHandle with businesslogic to hide direct access to the complex ExternalService's Interface*/
}
}
}
I have a problem trying to inject a contract with two services bound to it.
I'm using Jersey, and extending ResourceConfig to configure my app, where I'm binding two different implementations (classes FooImpl1 and FooImpl2) to a same contract (interface Foo), ranking them differently. Each of these implementations is annotated with #Named and its name.
In one of my controllers I want to have access to both implementations, so I inject an IterableProvider<Foo> fooProvider.
If I do not specify anything, the implementation with the highest rank is injected always, which is what I want.
The problem appears when I want a concrete implementation, one of them. When I call fooProvider.named( nameOfTheClass ).get(), is returning me null, but if I iterate over the fooProvider, I can have access to both implementations, so they are injected.
Anybody has an idea of what could I be missing?
Thanks a lot for your help.
Yeah so I'm not sure why it doesn't work with the #Named annotation value, as that's what's stated int the javadoc, but without the need for any annotations, we can configure the name when we do our bindings. We can do so with the named method.
register(new AbstractBinder(){
#Override
public void configure() {
bind(Foo1Impl.class).named("foo1").to(Foo.class);
bind(Foo2Impl.class).named("foo2").to(Foo.class);
}
});
UPDATE
So the above solution has been tested. If you are having problems still, post a complete runnable example that demonstrates it not working, like below (which is working)
Interface and Implementations
public interface Greeter {
String getGreeting(String name);
}
public class EnglishGreeter implements Greeter {
#Override
public String getGreeting(String name) {
return "Hello " + name + "!";
}
}
public class SpanishGreeter implements Greeter {
#Override
public String getGreeting(String name) {
return "Hola " + name + "!";
}
}
Resource
#Path("greeting")
public class GreetingResource {
#Inject
private IterableProvider<Greeter> greeters;
#GET
public Response getResponse(#QueryParam("lang") String lang,
#QueryParam("name") String name) throws Exception {
Greeter greeter = greeters.named(lang).get();
String message = greeter.getGreeting(name);
return Response.ok(message).build();
}
}
Binding. I did it in a Feature, but in a ResourceConfig, it's all the same.
#Provider
public class GreetingFeature implements Feature {
#Override
public boolean configure(FeatureContext context) {
context.register(new AbstractBinder(){
#Override
public void configure() {
bind(EnglishGreeter.class).named("english")
.to(Greeter.class).in(Singleton.class);
bind(SpanishGreeter.class).named("spanish")
.to(Greeter.class).in(Singleton.class);
}
});
return true;
}
}
Result