Related
I'm "playing" with Axon Framework with some small examples where the query and command services (and the logic behind them) are running as separated applications in several Docker containers.
Everything works fine so far and I started to evolve the event versioning topic. I haven't implemented that yet, but I like the idea to share the events as an API via JSON schema. But I've got stuck using that idea with the potential need of event upcasters.
If I understand that approach correctly every listening component has to upcasts the events independently, therefore it might be a good idea to share the upcasters, there is no need for different implementations, right? But then the upcasters seem to became a part of the API, or am I missing something?
How do you deal with that situation? Or generally, what are the best practices for API definitions in such scenario?
When accessing a microservices environment with distinct repositories for the different services, I feel it is common place to have a dedicated module/package/repository for the API of the given microservice. Or, a dedicated module for the shared language within a Bounded Context.
Especially when following the notion of Bounded Context, thus that every service within the context speaks the same language, to me emphasizes the requirement to share the created upcasters as well.
So shortly yes, I would group upcasters together with the API in question.
Schema languages typically also have solutions in place to support several versions of a message for example. Thus if you would be to use a schema language as your core API, that would also include a (although different) form of upcaster.
This is my 2 cents on the situation; hope this helps you out!
I have been reading the book Spring in Action for a few weeks now to learn about the spring framework. I have about 2 years of programming experience mostly in java with some distractions here and there in Ruby and Python.
After reading the first few chapters, I didn't quite get what the big deal is about dependency injection in spring. I was expecting a AHAAA moment but didn't quite experience that yet. I'm sure I'm missing something important.
Why would I want to wire my beans in xml rather than instantiating them the good old way with the = new myclass();
I understand I can wire beans in the xml via constructor args and properties as well as configure datasources in spring so that I can hide away connection details in an xml file. But why? There is more to this especially when it comes to good software design. Can some one explain the big deal?
Three Words: INVERSION OF CONTROL
In a nutshell:
As soon as you instantaniate "the good old way" you create tight coupling, e.g.: your controller depends on a specific template engine, your entities on a concrete database layer, etc. And that's something you want to prevent and where the dependency injection container (DIC) comes in very handy. It manages your services and you don't really have to care anymore about specific implementations as long as those implement the same interface.
Imagine a simple storage layer class called InMemoryLayer that gets instantiated by you when need it. Now you want to switch it for an awesome new open-source github solution called SuperSecretRemoteCloudLayer. Normally you would now hit "Search and Replace" in your IDE of choice and replace all occurrences of InMemoryLayer with the SuperSecretRemoteCloudLayer. But that's not really handy and quite errorprone, why would you want to do all that hard work by hand? The DIC can do that for you and all you need to take care of, is that both *Layer implement the same interface (so your application won't break).
Spring's big deal is more about dependency injection, not XML-based configuration. As others have noted, Spring has been moving away from XML-based configuration. But DI is core to Spring.
The a-ha is that DI offers a different model for linking components together. Instead of components creating each other directly (and thus being tightly coupled), the components stop doing that, and you inject the linkages from a central location. It turns out that this helps with testing and transaction management in particular.
You don't truly appreciate Spring until you've had to do things the hard way. The hard way being maintaining multiple large projects without a coherent framework. If you have 4 big enterprise wide applications that all have their own way of starting themselves, and managing resources, you're in for a headache. If you know that each application uses spring, then just look for the application context xml! This also makes it incredibly easy to setup a new context for different environments, and test cases, all without mucking up your code base.
I'm looking for some best practices when using Spring 3 annotations.
I'm currently moving to Spring 3 and from what I've read so far I see a lot of accent placed on using annotations and moving away from XML configuration.
Actually what is recommended is a mix of both styles, with annotations covering things that won't change often or from one run to the next (e.g. a #Controller will remain like that for the life time of the application), while the things that change and must be configurable go into XML (e.g. a mail smtp address, endpoints for web services that your application talks to etc).
My question is what should go into annotations and to what extent?
At which point annotations make things harder instead of easier? Is the technology (Spring 3) fully adopted as to be able to make such statements or does it take some more time for people to gain experience with it and then reflect on the issue?
It is always difficult to get real advanced information.
The easy tutorial with "look on my blog, I copied the hello word tutorial from Spring Source website... Now you can put fancy annotations everywhere, it the solution of all of our problems including cancer and starvation." is not really usefull.
If you remember right spring core had several purposes, among them:
to be non intrusive
to change any
implementation/configuration of a
bean at any time
to give a centralized and controlled
place to put your configuration
Anotation fail for all theses needs:
They introduce coupling with spring
(you can use standard anotation only
but as soon as you have at least one
spring anotation this is no longer
true)
You need to modify source code and
recompile to change bean
implementation or configuration
Annotations are everywhere in your
code. It can be difficult to find
what bean will be really used just by
reading the code or XML configuration
file.
In fact we have shifted our focus:
We realized that we almost never
provide several implementations of
our services.
We realised that being dependant of
an API is not that bad.
We realized that we use spring not only
for real dependancy injection
anymore, but mainly to increase
productivity and reduce java code
verbosity.
So I would use anotations when it make sence. When it is purerly to remove boilerplate code, verbosity. I would take care of using the XML configuration file for thing that you want to make configurable, even if it is only to provide a stub implementation of the service in unit tests.
I use #Value for properties that are configured in external properties file via PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer, as kunal noted.
There is no strict line for when to use xml, but I use xml:
when the bean is not a class I control
when the object is related to the infrastructure or configuration rather than to the business logic.
when the class has some primitive properties that I would like configurable, but not necessarily via externalized configurations.
In response to your comment: spring is very widely adopted, but "good" and "bad" are very subjective. Even my lines are not universal truths. XML, annotations and programmatic configuration all exists for a purpose, and each developer / company have their preferences.
As I said - there is no strict line, and no universal good practice for annotations.
Annotations are surely the way by which "newer" programming in java will continue. I use annotations for various uses...like #Scope for scope of bean, #Required for making dependency necessary, #Aspect for configuring advices,#Autowired for constructor injection using annotations. Since spring 2.5, annotation support has been good.
See here for spring tutorial, where annotation based issue are covered here.
I think that two cases that the usage of annotations could cause some problems. Firstly, if you want to write complex named queries (JPA) in your entities. I saw some entity code samples and asked myself whether the code is really java code or not. To many metadata in program code will reduce the readability of it which kills clean code principles.
Second problem is portability between JVM versions. Annotation is a feature 1.5+. If your software should support earlier JVM versions, then you may not use these.
Anyway, you can enjoy with annotations everytime without having any doubt and spare your time not changing IDE tabs to check XMLs if the property is still there or not, or entered correct etc.
For very small projects you could still XML version if you haven't too many stuff to be declared in spring. But, if you are in a huge project, the things could be very troublesome if you had 10 xml configs.
This will perhaps not help you much but at work they don't want to use autowiring because it needs a classpath scan (but that can be package-defined i think). So it increases the startup time of the application according to the size of the project.
I'm working with very large JSF/Facelets applications which use Spring for DI/bean management.
My applications have modular structure and I'm currently looking for approaches to standardize the modularization.
My goal is to compose a web application from a number of modules (possibly depending on each other). Each module may contain the following:
Classes;
Static resources (images, CSS, scripts);
Facelet templates;
Managed beans - Spring application contexts, with request, session and application-scoped beans (alternative is JSF managed beans);
Servlet API stuff - servlets, filters, listeners (this is optional).
What I'd like to avoid (almost at all costs) is the need to copy or extract module resources (like Facelets templates) to the WAR or to extend the web.xml for module's servlets, filters, etc. It must be enough to add the module (JAR, bundle, artifact, ...) to the web application (WEB-INF/lib, bundles, plugins, ...) to extend the web application with this module.
Currently I solve this task with a custom modularization solution which is heavily based on using classpath resources:
Special resources servlet serves static resources from classpath resources (JARs).
Special Facelets resource resolver allows loading Facelet templates from classpath resources.
Spring loads application contexts via the pattern classpath*:com/acme/foo/module/applicationContext.xml - this loads application contexts defined in module JARs.
Finally, a pair of delegating servlets and filters delegate request processing to the servlets and filters configured in Spring application contexts from modules.
Last days I read a lot about OSGi and I was considering, how (and if) I could use OSGi as a standardized modularization approach. I was thinking about how individual tasks could be solved with OSGi:
Static resources - OSGi bundles which want to export static resources register a ResourceLoader instances with the bundle context. A central ResourceServlet uses these resource loaders to load resources from bundles.
Facelet templates - similar to above, a central ResourceResolver uses services registered by bundles.
Managed beans - I have no idea how to use an expression like #{myBean.property} if myBean is defined in one of the bundles.
Servlet API stuff - use something like WebExtender/Pax Web to register servlets, filters and so on.
My questions are:
Am I inventing a bicycle here? Are there standard solutions for that? I've found a mentioning of Spring Slices but could not find much documentation about it.
Do you think OSGi is the right technology for the described task?
Is my sketch of OSGI application more or less correct?
How should managed beans (especially request/session scope) be handled?
I'd be generally grateful for your comments.
What you're aiming to do sounds doable, with a few caveats:
The View Layer: First, your view layer sounds a little overstuffed. There are other ways to modularize JSF components by using custom components that will avoid the headaches involved with trying to create something as dramatic as late-binding managed beans.
The Modules Themselves: Second, your modules don't seem particularly modular. Your first bullet-list makes it sound as if you're trying to create interoperable web apps, rather than modules per se. My idea of a module is that each component has a well-defined, and more or less discrete, purpose. Like how ex underlies vi. If you're going down the OSGi route, then we should define modular like this: Modular, for the sake of this discussion, means that components are hot-swappable -- that is, they can be added and removed without breaking the app.
Dependencies: I'm a little concerned by your description of the modules as "possibly depending on each other." You probably (I hope) already know this, but your dependencies ought to form a directed acyclic graph. Once you introduce a circular dependency, you're asking for a world of hurt in terms of the app's eventual maintainability. One of the biggest weaknesses of OSGi is that it doesn't prevent circular dependencies, so it's up to you to enforce this. Otherwise your dependencies will grow like kudzu and gradually choke the rest of your system's ecosystem.
Servlets: Fuhgeddaboudit. You can't late-bind servlets into a web app, not until the Servlet 3.0 spec is in production (as Pascal pointed out). To launch a separate utility servlet, you'll need to put it into its own app.
OK, so much for the caveats. Let's think about how this might work:
You've defined your own JSF module to do... what, exactly? Let's give it a defined, fairly trivial purpose: a login screen. So you create your login screen, late-bind it using OSGi into your app and... then what? How does the app know the login functionality is there, if you haven't defined it in your .jspx page? How does the app know to navigate to something it can't know is there?
There are ways to get around this using conditional includes and the like (e.g., <c:if #{loginBean.notEmpty}>), but, like you said, things get a little hairy when your managed loginBean exists in another module that may not have even been introduced to the app yet. In fact, you'll get a servlet exception unless that loginBean exists. So what do you do?
You define an API in one of your modules. All the managed beans that you intend to share between modules must be specified as interfaces in this API layer. And all your modules must have default implementations of any of these interfaces that they intend to use. And this API must be shared between all interoperable modules. Then you can use OSGi and Spring to wire together the specified beans with their implementation.
I need to take a moment to point out that this is not how I would approach this problem. Not at all. Given something like as simple as a login page, or even as complicated as a stock chart, I'd personally prefer to create a custom JSF component. But if the requirement is "I want my managed beans to be modular (i.e., hot-swappable, etc)," this is the only way I know to make it work. And I'm not even entirely sure it will work. This email exchange suggests that it's a problem that JSF developers have only just started to work on.
I normally consider managed beans to be part of the view layer, and as such I use them only for view logic, and delegate everything else to the service layer. Making managed beans late-binding is, to my mind, promoting them out of the view layer and into the business logic. There's a reason why all those tutorials are so focused on services: because most of the time you want to consider what it would take for your app to run "headless," and how easy it would be to "skin" your view if, for instance, you wanted it to run, with all its functionality, on an Android phone.
But it sounds like a lot of what you're working with is itself view logic -- for instance, the need to swap in a different view template. OSGi/Spring should be able to help, but you'll need something in your app to choose between available implementations: pretty much what OSGi's Service Registry was built to do.
That leaves static resources. You can modularize these, but remember, you'll need to define an interface to retrieve these resources, and you'll need to provide a default implementation so your app doesn't choke if they're absent. If i18n is a consideration, this could be a good way to go. If you wanted to be really adventurous, then you could push your static resources into JNDI. That would make them completely hot-swappable, and save you the pain of trying to resolve which implementation to use programmatically, but there are some downsides: any failed lookup will cause your app to throw a NamingException. And it's overkill. JNDI is normally used in web apps for app configuration.
As for your remaining questions:
Am I inventing a bicycle here? Are there standard solutions for that?
You are, a little. I've seen apps that do this kind of thing, but you seem to have stumbled into a fairly unique set of requirements.
Do you think OSGi is the right technology for the described task?
If you need the modules to be hot-swappable, then your choices are OSGi and the lighter-weight ServiceLocator interface.
Is my sketch of OSGI application more or less correct?
I can't really tell without knowing more about where your component boundaries are. At the moment, it sounds like you may be pushing OSGi to do more than it is capable of doing.
But don't take my word for it. I found other reading material in these places.
And since you ask about Spring Slices, this should be enough to get you started. You'll need a Git client, and it looks like you'll be training yourself on the app by looking through the source code. And it's very early prototype code.
I am facing the same problems in my current project. In my opinion, OSGi is the best and cleanest solution in terms of standards and future support, but currently you may hit some problems if you try using it in a web application:
there is no well integrated solution between a Web Container and the OSGi platform yet.
OSGi may be too much for a custom build web application that is just searching for a simple modularized architecture. I would consider OSGi if my project needs to support third party extensions that are not 100% under our control, if the project needs hot redeployments, strict access rules between plugins, etc.
A custom solution based on class loaders and resource filters seems very appropriate for me.
As an example you can study the Hudson source code or Java Plug-in Framework (JPF) Project(http://jpf.sourceforge.net/).
As about extending the web.xml, we may be lucky with the Servlet 3.0 specification(http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2008/10/14/introduction-to-servlet-3.html#pluggability-and-extensibility).
The "web module deployment descriptor fragment" (aka web-fragment.xml) introduced by the Servlet 3.0 specification would be nice here. The specification defines it as:
A web fragment is a logical
partitioning of the web app in such a
way that the frameworks being used
within the web app can define all the
artifacts without asking devlopers to
edit or add information in the
web.xml.
Java EE 6 is maybe not an option for you right now though. Still, it would to be the standardized solution.
Enterprise OSGi is a fairly new domain so dont think you will get a solution that directly satisfies your need. That said one of the things I found missing from Equinox (osgi engine behind eclipse and hence one with largest user base!) is a consistent configuration / DI service. In my project recently we had some similar needs and ended building a simple configuration osgi service.
One of the problems which will be inherent to modular applications would be around DI, as the module visibility could prevent class access in some cases. We got around this using a registered-buddy policy, which is not too ideal but works.
Other than configuration, you can take a look at the recently released Equinox book for guidance on using OSGi as base for creating modular applications. The examples may be specific to Equinox, but the principles would work with any OSGi framework. Link - http://equinoxosgi.org/
You should look into Spring DM Server (it's being transitioned to Eclipse Virgo but that's not been released yet). There's a lot of good things in the recent OSGi enterprise spec which has also just been released.
Some of the Spring DM tutorials will help, I'd imagine. But yes, it's possible to have both resources and classes loaded from outside the web bundle using standard modularity. In that, it's a good fit.
As for the session context - it gets handled as you would expect in a session. However, you might run into problems with sharing that session between web bundles to the extent that in not sure if it's even possible.
You could also look to have a single web bundle and then use e.g. the Eclipse extension registry to extend the capabilities of you web app.
We basically need to be able to adjust behaviour at start-up time, by providing desired classes to be produced by various factories inside our application (to avoid the hard binding of the "new" operator).
I am aware that this is provided by several large frameworks, but I was looking for something easily used by a stand-alone Java application without being gigantic.
Any suggestions?
Edit: It is my experience that frameworks tend to grow big as part of maturing (and complex too). I need this to be retrofittable to a legacy application as part of major refactoring (technical debt), so simplicity is essential of the used libraries. I do not mind having to do a bit of coding in our application, but it must be very visible what is going on. AOP has a tendency for moving stuff out of the way, and that may make the application harder to maintain.
Edit: We have now reached the point where we actually need to make a decision. The application will probably live for decades so we need to make a reversible decision with a framework that will be maintained for hopefully as long. I really like the static type check available with Guice, but not that the annotations bind explicitly to Guice instead of being external like in Spring. I also like that code appears to be more concise when using Guice as opposed to Spring. We need something that is robust and helpful. We do not need more than just DI at the moment. Is there a use case that definitive says go for one of these?
Edit 2011-07-27: The final decision was to use the JSR-330 API in code, and choose on a per-project basis if to use Spring, Guice or Weld. For stand-alone applications Guice has worked well so far as the JSR-330 implementation.
You can always use Spring Framework 2.5. It is a big one, but if you planning to use only DI you can use spring-core and spring-beans modules, which are pretty small (ca. 500KB and 300KB).
There is also Google Guice 2.0 which comes with a package with only basic stuff (no AOP) and it's 430KB.
Have you looked at the Google Guice framework? It's pretty lightweight and annotation-based, avoiding XML configuration files
There's also Pico- and Nano-container (from codehaus) which are quite lightweight although the last time I looked (admittedly a few years ago) the documentation was lacking.
I must say that I agree with others about what I assume is your presumption that Spring is massive and confusing. It's really a very simple IoC container and to be recommended.
There are a couple I know of you might find useful:
PicoContainer
Plexus (used in Maven)
I've found Plexus very useful in standalone apps as it has optional utility components for CLI interaction.
By "gigantic" I'm going to assume you're referring to Spring, but that's unfair, since you can cherry-pick the bits of Spring you want to use. If all you need is the IoC container, just use the appropriate JAR files and the appropriate bit of the API, and ignore the rest of it.
Most answers so far seem to be concerned with the size of the jar files to be added.
However I think the more important question is the impact on the project: How many lines of code must be added/changed in order to use the framework?
Even the "big" spring framework is actually very easy to use:
You basically need:
a xml file that describes your factories.
one line of code to initialize the container by loading the xml file
The nice thing is that spring is non-intrusive. So you do not have to implement specific interfaces or add any specific annotations or imports to your classes.
At best the single spot where you actually initialize the Spring container is the only
place in your application that has an actual dependency to spring classes.
I would strongly suggest to take a look at Spring ME. Although originally meant to be a way to use Spring on Java ME applications, it also works fine for standalone applications.
True, it doesn't give you all of the bells and whistles that Spring (Full) has to offer, but then again, Full Spring is much much more than a simple dependency injection framework.
On the plus side: it's based on a (compliant) subset of Spring's configuration files, and the footprint of the runtime is 0%. In fact, there isn't any. Spring ME will take your application context, and turn it into a class that has no dependencies on classes other than your own.
What's wrong with Spring?
These days it's packaged pretty well so you wouldn't need to take the whole kit and caboodle.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of the annotation based injection frameworks. This is because the annotations are bound to the class rather than the instance, the later being a pre-requisite, imho, for DI. This means every instance of a given class gets the same object(s) injected, which seems to defeat the point.
Also consider that DI doesn't even need a framework, what's wrong with your main method wiring together the application?
If you want something maximally simple and appropriate, then write some code that does what you want done. Presumably this involves wiring together factories based partly on fixed logic, and partly on run-time settings.
This has the advantage that the set of possible run-time configurations is known, and so documentable and testable.
It has the disadvantage that an deploying an unanticipated logic change inherently takes an extra second or so of compile time, and (more significantly) can't be sneaked into production without full testing by disguising it as 'just a configuration change'.
About a year ago I asked myself a question very like this. So I spend a few hours reading the Spring and Guice documentation. After about an hour with Spring I was left feeling that I could get a basic web app going, but had no idea how to use it in a stand alone application. After an hour with the Guice document everything had clicked and I could see just how I to do what I wanted to get done.
Now on to recommending Guice? Well no. What does your team already know? If someone already knows say Spring leaver that knowledge and have them spread it about. Like wise with Guice or Pico.
If you want something really light weight you might want to have a look at fuse it's fairly extendable so might be what you're looking for.
cheers
N