In most cases I have a lot of components which are having the same classes to be injected by an OSGi Declarative Service. The services will be used to execute some logic which is the same for all derived components. Therefore to avoid duplicated code it would be the best to use abstract classes. Is there any possibility to move the DI reference methods (set/unset) to an abstract class. I'm using Bnd.
For Example:
#Component
public class B implements IA {
private ServiceC sc;
#Reference
public void setServiceC(ServiceC sc) {
this.sc = sc;
}
public void execute() {
String result = executeSomethingDependendOnServiceC();
// do something with result
}
protected String executeSomethingDependendOnServiceC() {
// execute some logic
}
}
#Component
public class D implements IA {
private ServiceC sc;
#Reference
public void setServiceC(ServiceC sc) {
this.sc = sc;
}
public void execute() {
String result = executeSomethingDependendOnServiceC();
// do something different with result
}
protected String executeSomethingDependendOnServiceC() {
// execute some logic
}
}
I want to move the setter for ServiceC and the method executeSomethingDependendOnServiceC() to an abstract class. But how does it look like in OSGi in connection with Bnd annotation. Just annotate the class with #Component is not working, because A and D will create different instances of the abstract class and the #Component is alsp creating an instance.
Maybe someone experience the same problem and give me some advices how a workaround could look like. At least a best practice solution would be fine as well :)
The DS annotations must be on the class being instantiated for the component. Annotations on super classes are not supported. There is a proposal to change the in a future spec release.
What you can do is move the method to the super class, but you will need to trivially override the method in the subclass so that you can annotate it in the subclass.
Related
I have an Interface and multiple implementation. I'm auto wiring the interface in classes for usage. I need to choose different implementation at runtime.
public class Util {
public void getClient();
}
Implementations
public class UtilOne implements Util {
public void getClient() {...}
}
public class UtilTwo implements Util {
public void getClient() {...}
}
#Configuration
public class AppConfig {
#Autowired
#Bean
#Primary
public Util utilOne() {
return new UtilOne();
}
#Autowired
#Bean
public Util utilTwo() {
return new UtilTwo();
}
}
#Component
public class DemoService {
#Autowired
private Util util;
}
For some reason if we are unable to get client in UtilOne, I want to switch to UtilTwo without restarting the app. I want to change the Util object in DemoService to UtilTwo object.
Property active.util will come from DB and can we updated from UI.
It doesn't work this way - if you have a certain implementation of Util wired to, say, class SampleClass (which is a singleton) you can't really change the implementation of the Util to something different without restarting the application context.
So instead of going this way, I suggest an alternative. You say that under certain conditions that evaluate in runtime you want to switch implementations. What kind of condition it is? Is it possible to extract this condition decision logic?
If so, you can autowire a special DynamicUtil that will hold the reference to all the utils and will call the required util depending on the condition:
// represents all possible business 'runtime' outcomes
enum ConditionOutcome {
A, B, C
}
interface ConditionEvaluator {
ConditionOutcome evaluate(); // when called in runtime will evaluate a condition that currently exists in the system
}
interface Util {
void foo();
ConditionOutcome relevantOfOutcome();
}
class Utill1Impl implements Util {
public void foo() {...}
public ConditionOutcome relevantOfOutcome() {return ConditionOutcome.A;}
}
class Utill2Impl implements Util {
public void foo() {...}
public ConditionOutcome relevantOfOutcome() {return ConditionOutcome.B;}
}
class Utill3Impl implements Util {
public void foo() {...}
public ConditionOutcome relevantOfOutcome() {return ConditionOutcome.C;}
}
class DynamicUtil {
private final Map<ConditionOutcome, Util> possibleImpls;
private final ConditionEvaluator evaluator;
public class DynamicUtil(List<Util> allImplementations, ConditionEvaluator evaluator) {
// create a map by calling the 'relevantOfOutcome' per util impl in a loop
this.evaluator = evaluator;
}
public void foo() {
ConditionOutcome key = evaluator.evaluate();
// pick the relevant implementation based on evaluated key
possibleImpls.get(key).foo();
}
}
Now with such a design you can dynamically add new possible outcomes (along with utils that should implement them. You classes in the system will have to autowire DynamicUtil though, so effectively you'll introduce one additional level of indirection but will gain flexibility
class SampleClass { // a business class that will need to work with util capable of being changed during the runtime
#Autowired
private DynamicUtil util;
...
}
You can try approach with delegating proxy. Have a primary Util bean that is just wrapper around actual implementation and allow to change its internal delegate at runtime. In addition you can create something like manager/helper class that holds references to all actual implementation beans to simplify switching between them.
#Component
#Primary
public class DelegatingUtil implements Util {
private Util delegate;
public void setDelegate(Util delegate){ this.delegate = delegate; }
public Util getDelegate(){ return delegate; }
public void getClient() {
return delegate.getClient();
}
}
And where switching logic applies:
// Use #Named or #Qualifier or any other way to obtain references to actual implementations
private Util defaultImpl;
private Util fallbackImpl;
#Autowired
private DelegatingUtil switcher;
public void switchToFallback(){
this.switcher.setDelegate(this.fallbackImpl);
}
Note, this is only schematic example, you should take care about details like bean creation order, injection with qualifiers (maybe conditional), initialization and so on.
Here is a simple approach based on your situation. The main idea is that read active.util property from DB by PropertyService and wrap your Utils into RouteUtil:
#Component
public class RouteUtil {
#Autowired
private PropertyService propertyService;
#Qualifier("one")
#Autowired
private Util utilOne;
#Qualifier("two")
#Autowired
private Util utilTwo;
public void getClient() {
if ("one".equals(propertyService.read("active.util"))) {
utilOne.getClient();
} else {
utilTwo.getClient();
}
}
}
and in DemoService:
#Service
public class DemoService {
#Autowired
private RouteUtil util;
// RouteUtil.getClient() ...
}
You can change active.util to select which Util will be used at runtime without restarting the app.
Spring provides you a solution which I personally didn't like. What you can do is declare a
#MyInterface
List<MyIntercase> myimpls
Where MyInterface is your interface and list will contain all the implementations. However, I (since I didn't like this solution) wrote my own solution, where you can have a static factory that is self-populated by all implementations. So you don't have to inject all your implementations but choose them at run-time from a factory either by class name or by custom-defined name. An additional advantage is that the custom-defined name must be unique per factory. So lets say you have some staged process and for each stage you have your own interface and your own factory. So you can have the same custom defined names for your implementations of different interfaces. Say you working with text formats XML, JSON and CSV and have an interface (and related factory) for say stage-1 stage-2 stage-3. So for each stage-X inteface you can have implemetations named JSON, XML and CSV so all you have to do is have a variable called currentType that will hold one of the values - JSON, XML and CSV and for each stage you can use the factory to get the appropriate implementation:
Stage1Handler handler = stage-1-factory.getInstance(currentValue);
Stage2Handler handler = stage-2-factory.getInstance(currentValue);
Stage3Handler handler = stage-3-factory.getInstance(currentValue);
where Stage[X]Handler is your interface. But this is just an additional benifit. My solution is available in Open-source MgntUtils library. The article about this particular fiture could be found here: Non-intrusive access to "Orphaned" Beans in Spring framework Also, I describe this feature in my library javadoc here. The library could be found as Maven artifact and on Github including source code and Javadoc
I need to implement the same sequence of commands in a service, but operating on several different database objects, depending on a case. I'm wondering whether it is a good practice to use an inheritance in such case - which would consist in passing a different dao in a specifc class's constructor only. Something like this:
public abstract class Service{
private Dao dao;
public Service(Dao dao){
this.dao = dao;
}
public void mainMethod(){
dao.step1();
subMethod();
dao.step2();
}
public void subMethod(){
//...
}
}
public class ServiceImpl1 extends Service{
public ServiceImpl1(DaoImpl1 daoImpl1){
super(daoImpl1);
}
}
Inheritance is useful for delegating messages (method calls) to the superclass with few changes. You're not delegating messages to the parent class though, you're changing the parameter of the constructor. So there is no need to inherit anything.
This is fine:
public class Service{
private Dao dao;
public Service(Dao dao){
this.dao = dao;
}
public void mainMethod(){
dao.step1();
subMethod();
dao.step2();
}
public void subMethod(){
//...
}
}
You can then make instances like
Service posgresService = new Service(new PosgresDao());
Service redisService = new Service(new RedisDao());
See depenency injection for more details
I think that if -sequence of commands- refers to the exact same commands, I think you should create overloaded methods such as: if not, inheritance would be a good choice in order to keep orden in the code.
Since you are talking about inheritance and from the sample code provide, it seems like there will be one ServiceImpl class for each DaoImpl class. It will work, however you could also settle with a single ServiceImpl class for all Dao classes:
public class ServiceImpl implements Service {
public void mainMethod(Dao dao) {
dao.step1();
subMethod();
dao.step2();
}
public void subMethod() {
// ...
}
}
elsewhere
Service service = new ServiceImpl();
// ...
Dao dao1 = new DaoImpl1();
Dao dao2 = new DaoImpl2();
// ...
service.mainMethod(dao1);
service.mainMethod(dao2);
I am trying to use #Async annotation provided by spring. Going through some of the blogs I found there are the following constraints for using it:
It must be applied to public methods only
Self-invocation – calling the async method from within the same class – won’t work
I have a method which is getting called from the same class which I want to mark #Async. Is there any way of achieving it from the same class?
In Spring v4.3+ you can use self injection, and call the method on the self injected reference.
So for example:
#Component
public class SomeClass {
#Autowired
private SomeClass selfInjected;
public void someMethod() {
selfInjected.someOtherMethod();
}
#Async
public void someOtherMethod(){
...;
}
}
Updated as OP is using version before 4.3:
This will work for you.
#Component
public class SomeClass {
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext applicationContext;
private SomeClass selfInjected;
#PostConstruct
private void init() {
selfInjected = applicationContext.getBean(SomeClass.class);
}
}
Or
The other option is to extract the method to separate class and autowire it. I would personally explore this option before doing the above method.
This question is intended to make an answer for a useful issue.
Suppose we have a Spring application with a #Controller, an interface and different implementations of that interface.
We want that the #Controller use the interface with the proper implementation, based on the request that we receive.
Here is the #Controller:
#Controller
public class SampleController {
#RequestMapping(path = "/path/{service}", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public void method(#PathVariable("service") String service){
// here we have to use the right implementation of the interface
}
}
Here is the interface:
public interface SampleInterface {
public void sampleMethod(); // a sample method
}
Here is one of the possibile implementation:
public class SampleInterfaceImpl implements SampleInterface {
public void sampleMethod() {
// ...
}
}
And here is another one:
Here is one of the possibile implementation:
public class SampleInterfaceOtherImpl implements SampleInterface {
public void sampleMethod() {
// ...
}
}
Below I'll show the solution that I've found to use one of the implementations dynamically based on the request.
The solution I've found is this one.
First, we have to autowire the ApplicationContext in the #Controller.
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext appContext;
Second, we have to use the #Service annotation in the implementations of the interface.
In the example, I give them the names "Basic" and "Other".
#Service("Basic")
public class SampleInterfaceImpl implements SampleInterface {
public void sampleMethod() {
// ...
}
}
#Service("Other")
public class SampleInterfaceOtherImpl implements SampleInterface {
public void sampleMethod() {
// ...
}
}
Next, we have to obtain the implementation in the #Controller.
Here's one possible way:
#Controller
public class SampleController {
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext appContext;
#RequestMapping(path = "/path/{service}", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public void method(#PathVariable("service") String service){
SampleInterface sample = appContext.getBean(service, SampleInterface.class);
sample.sampleMethod();
}
}
In this way, Spring injects the right bean in a dynamic context, so the interface is resolved with the properly inmplementation.
I solved that problem like this:
Let the interface implement a method supports(...) and inject a List<SampleInterface> into your controller.
create a method getCurrentImpl(...) in the controller to resolve it with the help of supports
since Spring 4 the autowired list will be ordered if you implement the Ordered interface or use the annotation #Order.
This way you have no need for using the ApplicationContext explicitly.
Honestly I don't think the idea of exposing internal implementation details in the URL just to avoid writing some lines of code is good.
The solution proposed by #kriger at least adds one indirection step using a key / value approach.
I would prefer to create a Factory Bean (to be even more enterprise oriented even an Abstract Factory Pattern) that will choose which concrete implementation to use.
In this way you will be able to choose the interface in a separate place (the factory method) using any custom logic you wish.
And you will be able to decouple the service URL from the concrete implementation (which is not very safe).
If you are creating a very simple service your solution will work, but in an enterprise environment the use of patterns is vital to ensure maintenability and scalability.
I'm not convinced with your solution because there's an implicit link between an HTTP parameter value and a bean qualifier. Innocent change of the bean name would result in a disaster that could be tricky to debug. I would encapsulate all the necessary information in one place to ensure any changes only need to be done in a single bean:
#Controller
public class SampleController {
#Autowired
private SampleInterfaceImpl basic;
#Autowired
private SampleInterfaceOtherImpl other;
Map<String, SampleInterface> services;
#PostConstruct
void init() {
services = new HashMap()<>;
services.put("Basic", basic);
services.put("Other", other);
}
#RequestMapping(path = "/path/{service}", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public void method(#PathVariable("service") String service){
SampleInterface sample = services.get(service);
// remember to handle the case where there's no corresponding service
sample.sampleMethod();
}
}
Also, dependency on the ApplicationContext object will make it more complicated to test.
NB. to make it more robust I'd use enums instead of the "Basic" and "Other" strings.
However, if you know you'll only have two types of the service to choose from, this would be the "keep it simple stupid" way:
#Controller
public class SampleController {
#Autowired
private SampleInterfaceImpl basic;
#Autowired
private SampleInterfaceOtherImpl other;
#RequestMapping(path = "/path/Basic", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public void basic() {
basic.sampleMethod();
}
#RequestMapping(path = "/path/Other", method = RequestMethod.GET)
public void other() {
other.sampleMethod();
}
}
In my spring-based project I have a core module ('core') with a class
#Component
public class Superclass {
// stuff
}
instances of which are injected by type throughout the code like this:
public class AService {
#Autowired
private Superclass superclass;
// service stuff
}
I also have two other modules that depend on the core module and one of which (let's call it 'module1') extends Superclass:
#component
public class Subclass extends Superclass {
// overridden stuff
}
The other module ('module2') uses Superclass as is.
Now I want that when I compile and run 'child1' an instance of Subclass is used everywhere an instance of Superclass is expected. So I write a configuration class:
#Configuration
public class Module2Configuration {
#Bean
public Superclass superclass(){
return new Subclass();
}
}
When I run this I see both Superclass and Subclass instantiated which is definitely not what I want. How do specify in 'module1' which type Spring should instantiate?
You can use #Qualifier("some name") annotation.
There is more information about that: http://blogs.sourceallies.com/2011/08/spring-injection-with-resource-and-autowired/
Spring eagerly instantiates singleton beans as stated in the documentation:
By default, ApplicationContext implementations eagerly create and configure all singleton beans as part of the initialization process.
which might explain why both #Components are created.
To specifiy which implementation is provided as a dependency you might want to check on Qualifiers that enable to choose between different implementations. In combination with lazy loading this should do the trick.
Depending on your personal taste you could also use delegation instead of inheritance using a separated interface:
public interface MyService {
public String foobar(int baz);
}
public static class CommonBehavior {
// whatever is used by Superclass and Subclass
}
#Component #Lazy
public class FormerSuperClass implements MyService {
private final CommonBehavior ...;
...
}
#Component #Lazy
public class FormerSubClass implements MyService {
private final CommonBehavior ...;
...
}
Good luck!
There are 2 methods: Use #Qualifier("SubclassName") Or Mark your subclass as #Component and declare the subclass when #Autowired
In your case:
Use #Qualifier("SubclassName")
#Component
public class Superclass {
// stuff
}
#component
public class Subclass extends Superclass {
// overridden stuff
}
public class AService {
#Autowired
#Qualifier("Subclass")
private Superclass superclass;
// service stuff
}
2.Mark your subclass as #Component and declare the subclass when #Autowired
public class Superclass {
// stuff
}
#component
public class Subclass extends Superclass {
// overridden stuff
}
public class AService {
#Autowired
private Subclass subclass;
// service stuff
}