I am trying to define a custom DeltaSpike ConfigSource. The custom config source will have the highest priority and check the database for the config parameter.
I have a ConfigParameter entity, that simply has a key and a value.
#Entity
#Cacheable
public class ConfigParameter ... {
private String key;
private String value;
}
I have a #Dependent DAO that finds all config parameters.
What I am trying to do now, is define a custom ConfigSource, that is able to get the config parameter from the database. Therefore, I want to inject my DAO in the ConfigSource. So basically something like
#ApplicationScoped
public class DatabaseConfigSource implements ConfigSource {
#Inject
private ConfigParameterDao configParameterDao;
....
}
However, when registering the ConfigSource via META-INF/services/org.apache.deltaspike.core.spi.config.ConfigSource, the class will be instantiated and CDI will not work.
Is there any way to get CDI working in this case?
Thanks in advance, if you need any further information, please let me know.
The main problem is, that the ConfigSource gets instantiated very early on when the BeanManager is not available yet. Even the JNDI lookup does not work at that point in time. Thus, I need to delay the injection/lookup.
What I did now, is add a static boolean to my config source, that I set manually. We have a InitializerService that makes sure that the system is setup properly. At the end of the initialization process, I call allowInitialization() in order to tell the config source, that the bean is injectable now. Next time the ConfigSource is asked, it will be able to inject the bean using BeanProvider.injectFields.
public class DatabaseConfigSource implements ConfigSource {
private static boolean allowInit;
#Inject
private ConfigParameterProvider configParameterProvider;
#Override
public int getOrdinal() {
return 500;
}
#Override
public String getPropertyValue(String key) {
initIfNecessary();
if (configParameterProvider == null) {
return null;
}
return configParameterProvider.getProperty(key);
}
public static void allowInitialization() {
allowInit = true;
}
private void initIfNecessary() {
if (allowInit) {
BeanProvider.injectFields(this);
}
}
}
I have a request-scoped bean that holds all my config variables for type-safe access.
#RequestScoped
public class Configuration {
#Inject
#ConfigProperty(name = "myProperty")
private String myProperty;
#Inject
#ConfigProperty(name = "myProperty2")
private String myProperty2;
....
}
When injecting the Configuration class in a different bean, each ConfigProperty will be resolved. Since my custom DatabaseConfigSource has the highest ordinal (500), it will be used for property resolution first. If the property is not found, it will delegate the resolution to the next ConfigSource.
For each ConfigProperty the getPropertyValue function from the DatabaseConfigSource is called. Since I do not want to retreive the parameters from the database for each config property, I moved the config property resolution to a request-scoped bean.
#RequestScoped
public class ConfigParameterProvider {
#Inject
private ConfigParameterDao configParameterDao;
private Map<String, String> configParameters = new HashMap<>();
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
List<ConfigParameter> configParams = configParameterDao.findAll();
configParameters = configParams.stream()
.collect(toMap(ConfigParameter::getId, ConfigParameter::getValue));
}
public String getProperty(String key) {
return configParameters.get(key);
}
}
I could sure change the request-scoped ConfigParameterProvider to ApplicationScoped. However, we have a multi-tenant setup and the parameters need to be resolved per request.
As you can see, this is a bit hacky, because we need to explicitly tell the ConfigSource, when it is allowed to be instantiated properly (inject the bean).
I would prefer a standarized solution from DeltaSpike for using CDI in a ConfigSource. If you have any idea on how to properly realise this, please let me know.
Even though this post has been answered already I'd like to suggest another possible solution for this problem.
I managed to load properties from my db service by creating an #Signleton #Startup EJB which extends the org.apache.deltaspike.core.impl.config.BaseConfigSource and injects my DAO as delegate which I then registered into the org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.config.ConfigResolver.
#Startup
#Singleton
public class DatabaseConfigSourceBean extends BaseConfigSource {
private static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(DatabaseConfigSourceBean.class);
private #Inject PropertyService delegateService;
#PostConstruct
public void onStartup() {
ConfigResolver.addConfigSources(Collections.singletonList(this));
logger.info("Registered the DatabaseConfigSourceBean in the ConfigSourceProvider ...");
}
#Override
public Map<String, String> getProperties() {
return delegateService.getProperties();
}
#Override
public String getPropertyValue(String key) {
return delegateService.getPropertyValue(key);
}
#Override
public String getConfigName() {
return DatabaseConfigSourceBean.class.getSimpleName();
}
#Override
public boolean isScannable() {
return true;
}
}
I know that creating an EJB for this purpose basically produces a way too big overhead, but I think it's a bit of a cleaner solution instead of handling this problem by some marker booleans with static accessors ...
DS is using the java se spi mechanism for this which is not CD'Injectable'. One solution would be to use the BeanProvider to get hold of your DatabaseConfigSource and delegate operations to it.
Related
I have been refactoring a huge method in the project I work and came up with this idea to create a validation service like this -
public class TrickyValidation {
String validationVariable1;
String validationVariable2;
String validationVariable3;
HashMap<String, Object> itemsMap;
Object dependentObject;
#Autowired
SpringService service;
public static boolean doTrickyValidation(HashMap<String, Object> itemsMap, Object dependentObject) {
return new TrickyValidation(itemsMap, dependentObject).validate();
}
private TrickyValidation(Object itemsMap, Object dependentObject) {
this.itemsMap = itemsMap;
this.someDependentObject = dependentObject;
init();
}
private boolean validate() {
// loads of logic for validation by using validationVaribales
return true;
}
private void init() {
// Some methods to extract thease variables from itemsMap, dependentObject etc..
this.validationVariable1 = service.get(dependentObject);
this.validationVariable1 = ...;
this.validationVariable1 = ...;
}
}
My goal what I want to do here is to Encapsulate everything as much as possible and use clean code principles.
I feel a bit here like fighting spring framework because I don't want
that "TrickyValidation" class would be #Servcie and belong to spring container. Will Autowired even work here?
Is it a good design? Most likely I will use this validation in a loop. I like this solution because when I have to validate things I just simply call one and only public static method of this class TrickyValidation.doTrickyValidation(map, obj)
Any suggestions are welcome on how to improve this, or why it's a bad idea.
This code probably won't work because in the init method of the object you're trying to access service which is not autowired into this instance. In general the autowiring works only for objects managed (created by) Spring.
In this case you create "manually" the object of class TrickyValidation...
IMO the better design is to split the "Validator" object that can be Spring managed and the Validation itself that is not spring based.
#Component
public class Validator {
#Autowired
private Service service;
public boolean doTrickyValidation(HashMap<String, Object> itemsMap, Object dependentObject) {
// resolve the validation strategy from the items passed to this method.
TrickyValidation validation = resolveTrickyValidation(itemsPam, dependentObject);
return validation.validate();
}
private TrickyValidation resolveTrickyValidation(...) {
// construct the proper validation strategy
// access service if you want
}
}
My ExampleBean needs information from UsefulBean1 only at creation time. So I can discard the UsefulBean1 instance after getting the information I want.
#ManagedBean
public class ExampleBean {
private int value;
#Inject
public void setUseful(UsefulBean usefulBean){
this.value = usefulBean.getValue();
//bye, bye usefulBean. see ya.
}
}
But what about my ExampleBean2, that needs, at creation time, combined information from UsefulBean1and UsefulBean2?
I know I can get them #Injected and combine the information on a #PostConstruct method:
#ManagedBean
public class ExampleBean2 {
private int value;
#Inject
private UsefulBean1 usefulBean1;
#Inject
private UsefulBean2 usefulBean2;
#PostConstruct
public void init(){
this.value = this.usefulBean1.getValue() + this.usefulBean2.getValue();
//from this point on, the usefulBeans fields are useless...
this.usefulBean1 = null;
this.usefulBean2 = null;
}
}
But it annoys me a bit that I keep these two no-longer-necessary fields (this.usefulBean1 and this.usefulBean2).
I have tried a multi-parameter set method, to no avail.
This is surely nothing breaking anything or wasting resources. But the code, IMHO, would just be more clear without fields working as temporary throwaway variables.
Is there a away to initialize a CDI bean with data from multiple other beans, without the need to set them as fields?
(First, #ManagedBean has nothing to do with CDI. It should not be used.)
(Second, always think about lifespans ("scopes"): how long should each bean live? For this example I'll pretend that you want ExampleBean2 to be the only such bean in your application, so I'll mark it with #ApplicationScoped (some of your comments above reference proxying so this is a reasonable guess). You could annotate it with, for example, #RequestScoped or #Dependent or some other scope instead. If you don't annotate it with any scope annotation, then it will behave exactly as if you had annotated it with #Dependent.)
Like this:
#ApplicationScoped
public class ExampleBean2 {
private final int value;
/**
* #deprecated To be used only by the CDI framework, not end users.
*/
#Deprecated
protected ExampleBean2() {
super();
}
#Inject
public ExampleBean2(final UsefulBean1 usefulBean1, final UsefulBean2 usefulBean2) {
super();
this.value = this.usefulBean1.getValue() + this.usefulBean2.getValue();
}
}
My current situation:
I want to inject the following class into my application:
public interface IConfigAccessor<T extends IConfig> {
...
}
ConfigAccessors are a proxy-objects, created dynamically at runtime. The creation of these object works as follows:
public class ConfigFactory implements IConfigFactory {
private final IConfigUpdater updater;
#Inject
public ConfigFactory(IConfigUpdater updater) {
this.updater = updater;
}
#Override
public <T extends IConfig> IConfigAccessor<T> register(final String configKey, final Class<T> configClass) {
ConfigCache<T> configCache = new ConfigCache<>(new SomeOtherThings(), configKey, configClass);
updater.register(configCache);
return new ConfigAccessor<>(configCache, configKey, configClass);
}
}
As you can see, to create these objects, I need to inject the ConfigUpdater and other depdencies. This means, that guice needs to be fully configured already.
To get the instance out of Guice, I use the following code:
IConfigFactory configClient = injector.getInstance(IConfigFactory.class);
IConfigAccessor<ConcreteConfig> accessor = configClient.register("key", ConcreteConfig.class)
How I want to inject them via Guice:
Currently, I can get the requried objects, but I have to manually pass them around in my application.
Instead, what I want to have is the following:
public class SomeClass {
#Inject
public SomeClass(#Config(configKey="key") IConfigAccessor<ConcreteConfig> accessor) {
// hurray!
}
}
What's the correct approach/technology to get this working?
After a lot of research, I'm feeling a bit lost on how to approach this topic. There are a lot of different things Guice offers, including simple Providers, custom Listeners which scan classes and identify custom annotations, FactoryModuleBuilders and more.
My problem is quite specific, and I'm not sure which of these things to use and how to get it working. I'm not even sure if this is even possible with Guice?
Edit: What I have so far
I have the following annotation which I want to use inside constructor paramters:
#Target({ ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER })
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public #interface InjectConfig {
String configKey();
}
Inside the module, I can bind a provider to IConfigAccessor (with the above annotation) as such:
bind(IConfigAccessor.class).annotatedWith(InjectConfig.class)
.toProvider(new ConfigProvider<>());
However, there are two problems whith this:
The provider cannot provide IConfigAccessor. To create such an instance, the provider would need an IConfigUpdater, but since I use 'new' for the provider, I can't inject it.
Inside the provider, there is no way to find out about the configKey used in the Annotation.
Second approach:
Let's assume that I already know all configurations and configKeys I want to inject during startup. In this case, I could loop over all possible configKeys and have the following binding:
String configKey = "some key";
final Class<? extends IConfig> configClass =...;
bind(IConfigAccessor.class).annotatedWith(Names.named(configKey))
.toProvider(new ConfigProvider<>(configKey, configClass));
However, problem (1) still resides: The provider cannot get an IConfigUpdater instance.
The main problem here is that you cannot use the value of the annotation in the injection. There is another question which covers this part:
Guice inject based on annotation value
Instead of binding a provider instance, you should bind the provider class, and get the class by injecting a typeliteral.
That way, your config factory can look like that:
public class ConfigFactory<T extends IConfig> implements IConfigFactory {
#Inject private final IConfigUpdater updater;
#Inject private TypeLiteral<T> type;
#Override
public IConfigAccessor<T> register(final String configKey) {
Class<T> configClass = (Class<T>)type.getRawType();
ConfigCache<T> configCache = new ConfigCache<>(new SomeOtherThings(), configKey, configClass);
updater.register(configCache);
return new ConfigAccessor<>(configCache, configKey, configClass);
}
}
And then SomeClass:
public class SomeClass {
#Inject
public SomeClass(ConfigFactory<ConcreteConfig> accessor) {
ConcreteConfig config = accessor.register("key");
}
}
Since SomeClass needs to know "key" anyway, this is not too much a change information-wise. The downside is that the SomeClass API now gets a factory instead of the concrete config.
[EDIT]
And here is someone who actually did inject annotated values using custom injection.
Is my impression correct that by using the regular new XYZ() way of instantiating some component XYZ prevents Spring from processing the #Autowired fields inside XYZ?
Second question: is it correct that I cannot use dependency injection in XYZ and at the same time use final fields in XYZ because of that? Example:
#Component
public class XYZ {
#Autowired
private SomeDep dep;
private final int value;
public XYZ(int value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
How would I make that working?
So, well, accepting there is no nicer way, let's do it that way:
#Component
public class XYZ {
#Autowired
private SomeDep dep;
private final int value;
// factory instantiation
XYZ() {
value=0;
}
private XYZ(SomeDep dep, int value) {
this.dep = dep;
this.value = value;
}
public XYZ getInstance(int value) {
return new XYZ(dep, value);
}
}
??? That is ugly. And it gets even uglier when I want to move the dependency declaration to a parent class....... ??? I always thought DI is nice. I think I have to reconsider that. What are the alternatives? Am I missing something?
If you create object with new, #Autowired won't work, because this object is created outside of the Spring IoC container. So this object should be instantiated by spring in order to let it inject dependencies. To get this object (bean) from container (spring application context), you should initialize Spring context and call context.getBean("beanName").
You can use constructor dependency injection here. Here you can read more about injection types
I would like to be able to change the Guice injections at runtime to support multiple injections based on user input. This is what I would like to achieve:
public interface IDao {
public int someMethod();
}
public class DaoEarth implements IDao {
#Override
public int someMethod(){ ... }
}
public class DaoMars implements IDao {
#Override
public int someMethod(){ ... }
}
public class MyClass {
#Inject
private IDao myDao;
public int myMethod(String domain) {
//If Domain == Earth, myDao should be of the type DaoEarth
//If Domain == DaoMars, myDao should be of the type DaoMars
}
}
I was thinking of writing my own Provider, but I don't know how to use that provider to change my bindings at runtime. Any input is welcome and appreciated :)!
Update
Here's what I currently came up with, it's not as pretty as I'd like, so I'm still looking for feedback
public class DomainProvider {
#Inject #Earth
private IDaoProvider earthDaoProvider;
#Inject #Mars
private IDaoProvider marsDaoProvider;
public IDaoProvider get(Domain domain){
switch (domain){
case EARTH:
return earthDaoProvider;
case MARS:
return marsDaoProvider;
}
}
public IDaoProvider get(String domain){
Domain parsedDomain = Domain.valueOf(domain.toUpperCase());
return get(parsedDomain);
}
}
//MarsDaoProvider would be equivalent
public class EarthDaoProvider implements IDaoProvider {
#Inject #Earth
private IDao earthDao;
public IDao getDao() {
return earthDao;
}
}
// This means that in "MyClass", I can do:
public class MyClass {
#Inject
private DomainProvider domainProvider;
public int myMethod(String domain) {
IDaoProvider daoProvider = domainProvider.get(domain);
IDao dao = daoProvider.getDao();
//Now "dao" will be of the correct type based on the domain
}
}
//Of course elsewhere I have the bindings set like
bind(IDao.class).annotatedWith(Earth.class).to(EarthDao.class);
Your version is almost perfect as it is: You're going to need to inject some kind of object that returns one or the other based on code you write, and don't need assisted injection or anything like that. That said, you can skip some of the boilerplate:
public class DomainProvider {
// Just inject Providers directly without binding them explicitly.
#Inject #Earth Provider<IDao> earthDaoProvider;
#Inject #Mars Provider<IDao> marsDaoProvider;
public Provider<IDao> get(Domain domain){
switch (domain){
case EARTH:
return earthDaoProvider;
case MARS:
return marsDaoProvider;
}
}
public Provider<IDao> get(String domain){
Domain parsedDomain = Domain.valueOf(domain.toUpperCase());
return get(parsedDomain);
}
}
Your MyClass in that case would be exactly identical. Here, Provider is either the one-method generic interface com.google.inject.Provider, or the equivalent builtin javax.inject.Provider that it extends. Read more about Guice Providers on the relevant Guice wiki topic.
bind(IDao.class).annotatedWith(Earth.class).to(EarthDao.class);
// You can now inject "#Earth IDao" and also "#Earth Provider<IDao>".
Basically, if you bind a key Foo (to a class, provider, #Provides method, or instance), you automatically get to inject either a Foo or Provider<Foo> with no additional work. Providers are also a great way to ensure that you get a new instance with every call to get, if that's what you want; with your original, you'll always get the same instance of EarthDao or MarsDao for any given DomainProvider you inject. (If you have a scoped binding like #Singleton, Guice will respect that too; Provider just lets Guice get involved, rather than reusing a plain old Java reference.)
This means you can skip your custom EarthDaoProvider and MarsDaoProvider, unless you really need to perform any external initialization on them—at which point you'd probably be better off calling bind(EarthDao.class).toProvider(EarthDaoProvider.class) so the preparation also happens when injecting EarthDao directly. You could also just have DomainProvider return an IDao instance directly by calling get on the appropriate Provider, and be assured that it'll be a new instance every time.