Consider this example
#Stateless
public class UniqueIdGenerator {
private static final String COLON = ":";
private String serverPrivateKey;
#SuppressWarnings("UnusedDeclaration")
public UniqueIdGenerator() {
}
#Inject
public UniqueIdGenerator(#Nonnull final String serverPrivateKey) {
this.serverPrivateKey = serverPrivateKey;
}
...
}
I would like to #Inject value of serverPrivateKey based on an environment variable available in different environments.
What is the best way to inject it here?
To inject values from the environment, rather than writing your own producer methods, you may want to have a look at the Configuration API of Apache DeltaSpike.
Using a #ConfigProperty qualifier, you can inject values from a number of different property sources, like system properties, environment variables or JNDI.
Example:
#Inject
#ConfigProperty(name = "SERVER_PRIVATE_KEY")
private String serverPrivateKey;
We use the following pattern: There is a bean which gives us the value which we need. The bean knows how to get the value (environment, System property, whatever). To make things easier later, the type of the bean should be an interface (in your case that might be IPrivateKeyProvider).
The UniqueIdGenerator is then created and we inject the first bean. The setup then decides which bean this will be (some kind of mock for tests and a real implementation for production code).
You will have to use producer Method :
According to related oracle documentation :
A producer method generates an object that can then be injected. Typically, you use producer
methods in the following situations:
[...]
When the concrete type of the object to be injected may vary at runtime
See an example here
Related
Assume I have a configuration class accessible via the stock CDI that defines some application-wide parameters:
#ApplicationScoped
class AppConfig {
public double getMaxAllowedBrightness() { ... }
};
And I have a simple class for my data objects:
class LightSource {
double brightness;
...
boolean isValid() {
double maxAllowedBrightness = ...; // Somehow use AppConfig#getMaxAllowedBrightness() here
return brightness <= maxAllowedBrightness;
}
}
How can my data object access the single AppConfig instance?
Somehow I hate the idea of autowiring AppConfig into every single data object (there are lots of them). Is there any other way to get access to AppConfig in the above example from my data object?
What's the best pattern to use here?
The simplest example is a runtime lookup akin to:
import jakarta.enterprise.inject.spi.CDI;
CDI.current().select(cls).get();
With cls being the class that you're looking up. (Note the package name, this is the latest version of CDI 2.x in the new jakarta namespace, the original is in javax.)
It gets more detailed from there, but that's the gist of it.
Note, that semantically there's little difference between autowiring something and doing a runtime lookup, especially for something mostly static at the instance level. It's still a dependency. You still have to touch the code of the classes to pull it off.
A nice thing of relying on the autowiring is that you can disable it situationally, and the class reverts to a simple bean, that you can do with what you will. Coding in the lookup, it's a little bit more than that.
Dynamic lookup is more for special circumstances.
On my current project, our team has been doing this using the #Value annotation. In our case, we have all the properties in a properties bean, which I'll call mainAppConfiguration. The bean is populated from a properties file like main-app-config.properties (which was read into the bean with a Properties prop = new Properties().load(mainAppConfigFilePath) method.
Assuming you have something like that set up, then we inject the properties into the classes that need them using a little SpEL magic something like:
private Integer refreshRateSeconds;
#Value("#{ mainAppConfiguration.getProperties()['funny-property-base-name.refreshRateSeconds'] }")
public void setRefreshRateSeconds(Integer refreshRateSeconds) {
if (refreshRateSeconds == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Required config property 'funny-property-base-name.refreshRateSeconds' was not found"));
}
this.refreshRateSeconds = refreshRateSeconds;
}
Baeldung has examples (without defaults) and more with defaults.
We are actually using Spring Boot's #ConfigurationProperties as basically a configuration mapper : it provides us an easy shortcut to map properties on objects.
#ConfigurationProperties("my.service")
public class MyService {
private String filePrefix;
private Boolean coefficient;
private Date beginDate;
// getters/setters mandatory at the time of writing
public void doBusinessStuff() {
// ...
}
}
Although this was a nice productivity boost when we were prototyping the app, we came to question if this was right usage.
I mean, configuration properties have a different status in Spring Boot's context, they're exposed through actuator endpoints, they can be used to trigger conditional beans, and seem more oriented toward technical configuration properties.
Question : Is it "correct" to use this mechanism on any business property/value, or is it plain misuse ?
Any potential drawback we missed ?
Right now our only concern is that we cannot use #ConfigurationProperties on immutable classes, which is closely related to this issue on Spring Boot's tracker : Allow field based #ConfigurationProperties binding
If your property represents something that is configurable based on the environment/profile that is what the mechanism is there for. Though I'm a little unclear what you mean by
"map properities on objects".
I would not favor this style in general, especially if your bean has multiple properties to set. A more standard idiom is to have a class that encapsulates the properties/settings used to create your bean:
#ConfigurationProperties("my.service")
public class MyServiceProperties {
private String filePrefix;
private Boolean coefficient;
private Date beginDate;
// getters/setters mandatory at the time of writing
}
then your Service class would look like this:
#EnableConfigurationProperties(MyServiceProperties.class)
public class MyService {
#Autowired
private MyServiceProperties properties;
//do stuff with properties
public void doBusinessStuff() {
// ...
}
}
This would at least allow you to pass the properties easily into an immutable class through it's constructor (make copies of any mutable properties). Also having the properties bean can be reused if you find other parts of your app need some shared configuration.
So I have a class like so:
public class HBaseUtil {
private final String fileName = "hbase.properties";
private Configuration config;
private HBaseUtil() {
try {
config = new PropertiesConfiguration(fileName);
} catch (ConfigurationException e) {
// some exception handling logging
}
}
// now some getters pulling data out of the config object
public static String getProperty(String fieldKeyName) {...}
public static String getColumnFamily(String fieldName) {...}
// ... some more getters
// NO setters (thus making this a read-only class)
}
Thus, basically I have for myself a Singleton class, that the very first time that it is put to use, sets up a configuration object, and then simply keeps listening for get calls. There are a number of problems with this class:
Unit testing the static methods within class HBaseUtil becomes difficult because of a tight-knit coupling between the Singleton and the configurations file.
What I really want is me being able to supply the filename/filename+path to the class so that it can go in there, read the configuration properties from that file and offer them to incoming read requests. One important note here though: I need this flexibility in specifying the properties file ONLY ONCE per JVM launch. So I certainly don't need to maintain state.
Here is what I was able to come up with:
Instead of a Singleton, I have a normal class with all static methods and no explicit constructor defined.
public class HBaseUtil {
// directly start with getters
public static String getProperty(Configuration config, String fieldKeyName) {...}
public static String getColumnFamily(Configuration config, String fieldKeyName) {...}
// ...and so on
}
And then, instead of using the class in my other code like such:
HBaseUtil.getProperty(String fieldKeyName)
I'd use it like so:
Configuration externalConfig = new PropertiesConfiguration("my-custom-hbase.properties");
HbaseUtil.getProperty(externalConfig, fieldKeyName)
My questions:
Am I even thinking in the right direction? My requirement is to have the flexibility in the class only ONCE per JVM. All that needs to be configurable in my project for this, is the location/contents of the HBase .properties file. I was thinking having a Singleton is overkill for this requirement.
What other better approaches are there for my requirement (stated in above point)?
Thanks!
Note: I've read this StackOverflow discussion, but now it's gotten me even more confused.
You should avoid all static methods and instead design a class which does not mandate its lifecycle: it can be a typical immutable POJO with a public constructor.
Then, when you need it as a singleton, use it as a singleton. For testing, use it in some other way.
Usually, dependency injection is the preferred avenue to solve these problems: instead of hard-coding a pulling mechanism for your configuration object, you have the object delivered to any class which needs it. Then you can decide late what bean you will deliver.
Since you are probably not using Spring (otherwise dependency injection would be your default), consider using Guice, which is a very lightweight and non-intrusive approach to dependency injection.
I have been using Guice for a few years now and just switched to a company that uses Spring. I am a fan of Dependency Injection but having a few issues figuring out how to get Spring to do what I want.
Here is what I have in the code right now (its not scala code, just shorter so using that syntax):
class A(b: B)
class B(exe: ExecutorService)
...
#Value("${search.threads}") var searchThreads: int
exe = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(searchThreads)
In guava I could use Named annotations to have different executors, or just use one executor for anyone that needed it and just define
final int searchThreads = readSearchThreadsFromConfigs()
bind(Executor.class).toInstance(Executors.newFixedThreadPool(searchThreads));
I am not sure how to set this up within Spring. It seems every example I see doesn't really cover generics, nor does it really go over static constructors or being able to "provide" the value.
What is the best way to get similar results to what I had above from Guice? Is there a notion of a "module" like guice and dagger use (other than the xml file, something statically checked)?
EDIT:
Here is a bit of the code currently used. It creates the executor within the constructor:
#Autowired
public LogsModule(#Value("${search.threads}") final int searchThreads) {
searchPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(searchThreads);
}
In Spring it's basically the same.
Your example can be rewritten as follows using #Configuration:
#Bean(value = "searchExecutor", destroyMethod = "shutdownNow")
public ExecutorService executorService(Environment env) {
final int searchThreads = env.getProperty("searchThreads", Integer.class, 3);
return Executors.newFixedThreadPool(searchThreads));
}
This example uses Environment - you can either add properties from your config to it, or use your config directly instead.
With XML configuration it would be more complex, but you can mix #Configuration with XML.
If you need multiple executors, you can use #Qualifier (or perhaps #Named) to distinguish between candidates by their bean names:
#Autowired
public LogsModule(#Qualifier("searchExecutor") ExecutorService e) { ... }
Is there a simple way to inject simple primitive type parameters (string and int) to the beans?
What i need is to find the guice equivalent of something like this from spring.xml:
<bean id="aBean" ...>
<property name="fieldName" value="aStringValue"/>
<property name="anotherFieldName" value="123"/>
</bean>
The values could be constructor injected, field injected or method injected, but i don't want to use separate named annotation or factory or provider for every value that i need to pass to the bean.
EDIT: my solution
Here is what i finally came to. I think it is closest to what i'm looking for, but any improvements would be welcome.
I found that in the module, i can declare a provider method and use it to set any properties i need:
MyModule extends AbstractModule{
...
#Provides #Named("testBean") MyTestBean createTestBean(MembersInjector<TestBean> mi){
TestBean test = new TestBean();
mi.injectMembers(test);
test.setFieldName("aStringValue");
test.setAnotherFieldName(123);
return test;
}
...
}
The good point is that the Provides method replaces the bind() for the bean and this way the actual line count doesn't increase much.
I'm still not 100% sure about any side effects, but it looks promising.
There is a build in mechanism to inject properties.
Properties File:
name=jan
city=hamburg
Module
#Override
protected void configure() {
Names.bindProperties(binder(), properties);
}
then in your bean, just inject by Name
class Customer {
#Inject
#Named("name")
String name;
....
}
There are a couple different ways you could do this, including your way. The only drawback to using a Provider method is that it's essentially a hand-rolled factory that you have to remember to maintain. (And in this specific case, you're also not getting the benefits of constructor injection).
Absent a Provider method, you have to use a binding annotation of some kind. If #Named won't work for you, then you'd need to create an annotation for each binding.
bindConstant().annotatedWith(FieldName.class).to("aStringValue");
public SomeClass {
public void setFieldName(#FieldName String fieldname) {}
}
In some cases this might require a 1-to-1 annotation per primitive/String instance to be bound. But I try to make my annotations somewhat orthogonal to the actual instance being described, preferring instead to use the annotation to describe the relationship between the bound objects and the injection points.
It's not always possible, but a whole group of related primitives could then potentially be described by a single binding annotation, as long as each primitive type is only used once in the set. So, this could hypothetically work:
bindConstant().annotatedWith(MyAnnotation.class).to("aStringValue");
bindConstant().annotatedWith(MyAnnotation.class).to(123);
Parenthetically, I'm curious why you can't used #Named annotations on the property, but you can use them on the injected bean?