In my Java 8 Play 2.6 application I have this particular line in a MessageConsumer class that reads a "Rule" record in the DB and sends the JSON message (node) to a specific processor based on the type configured on the rule column. ProcessType is an enum of Sub Classes that all extend from a base (Super class) process.
Play.current().injector().instanceOf(ProcessType.getClass(matchingRule.getProcessType())).processMessage(node, matchingRule);
I'm having trouble figuring out how to refactor this and don't want to add the allowGlobalApplication = true config parameter if I can avoid it.
The most straightforward approach is to inject the Injector into the component that contains this call (the MessageConsumer). This can be done the same way as any other Play component.
You can also inject the Application instance, which would return the same thing as Play.current(). This could be useful if you need more information from the Application object, but if not, injecting the Injector directly would be preferable, as it would create less coupling between the MessageConsumer and other components.
This assumes that the MessageConsumer is created by DI itself. If not, please add more details to the question, including the context code.
Related
I'm trying to figure out how to inject run-time arguments into a singleton when it is created, and then have those arguments just be remembered from then on. I'm not sure if the interface for run-time arguments can support this, though. Say, for example, I have a Client object that requires a token, and has the following initializer:
+ (instancetype)initWithToken:(NSString *)token;
The token is obtained at runtime from the server and is different for every user, so I can't simply put the NSString in the definition. So I create the following method on my Typhoon assembly:
- (Client *)clientWithToken:(NSString *)token;
However, in the future (when I'm injecting this client into other classes), I won't have the token on hand to call this method with. So I would like to just be able to inject [self client], for example. Since the client is a singleton and has already been created, the token isn't necessary, anyway.
However, I can't seem to find a way to do this. Obviously, defining a separate method called client would just return a different client. Can I just call clientWithToken:nil and the argument will be ignored if the client already exists? Perhaps traversing the assembly's singletons array would work, but that is obviously very inelegant.
I have considered injecting by type (so I don't need a method to call), but I have multiple different clients of the same type, so I need to be explicit about which client to inject. Of course, there is also the option of removing this parameter from the initializer, and instead setting it as a property from outside the assembly; however this pattern is used throughout our application, so I would like to avoid rewriting that much code.
Thank you.
Reviewing the Typhoon User Guide's 'When to Use Runtime Arguments' shows that this scenario isn't really a good match. Runtime arguments are great when we have a top-level component that mixes some static dependencies with information that is known later - thus avoiding the creation of a custom 'factory' class. Its not possible to use them in the way described.
Instead consider the following suggestions:
Inject a shared context class
Create a mutable Session model object and register it with Typhoon. Update the state on this model when you have a token. Inject this into the clients, which will use this session information when making connections.
Aspect Hook
Hook your clients so that before a method is invoked the token information is available. This could be done by:
Using an Aspects library like this one.
Define a Protocol for the clients and wrap the base implementation in one that is security aware.
For instance I have this bit of code
public class ProductService{
private IProductDataSource _dataSource = DependencyManager.Get<IProductDataSource>();
public Product Get(int id){
return _dataSource.Select(id);
}
}
I have 2 different data source:
XML file which contains the informations only in 1 language,
a SQL data base which contains the informations in many languages.
So I created 2 implementation for IProductDataSource, for for each kind of datasource.
But how do I send the required language to the SQL data source ?
I add the parameter "language" to the method "IProductDataSource.Select" even if I won't use it in the case of the XML implementation.
Inside the SQL implementation I get the language from a global state ?
I add the language to the constructor of my SQL implementation, but then I won't use my DependencyManager and handle my self the dependency injection.
Maybe my first solution is not good.
The third option is the way to go. Inject the language configuration to your SQL implementation. Also get rid of your DependencyManager ServiceLocator and use constructor injection instead.
If your application needs to work with multiple languages in a single instance I think point one is a sensible approach. If the underlying data does not provide translations for a request language then return null. There is another solution in this scenario. I'm assuming that what you have is a list of products and language translations for each product. Can you refactor your model so that you do not need to specify or asertain the langauge until you reference language specific text? The point being a product is a product regardless of the language you choose to describe it. i.e. one product instance per product, only the product id on the Datasource.Select(..) method and some other abstraction mechanism to deal with accessing the correct text translation.
If however each instance of your application is only concerned with one language set I second Mr Gloor.
First of all I need to point out that you are NOT injecting any dependencies with your example - you are depending on a service locator (DependencyManager) to get them for you. Dependency injection, simply put, is when your classes are unaware of who provides the dependencies, e.g. using a constructor, a setter, a method. As it was already mentioned in the other answers, Service locator is an anti-pattern and should be avoided. The reasons are described in this great article.
Another thing is that the settings you are mentioning, such as language or currency, seem to be localization related and would probably be better dealt with using the built-in mechanisms of your language of choice (e.g. resource files, etc).
Now, having said that, depending on how the rest of your code is structured you have several options to solve this while still using Service locator:
You could have SqlDataSource depend on some ILanguageProvider which pulls the current language from somewhere. However, with more settings like these (or if it is difficult to get current language in an isolated way) this can get messy very fast.
You could depend on IProductDataSourceFactory instead (or, if you are using C#, Func<IProductDataSource>) which would return the concrete implementation with the correct settings. Again, you need to be able to get the current language in an isolated way in order to use this.
You could go with option 1 in your question. This would be a leaky abstraction but would be the simplest to implement.
However, if you decide to get rid of service locator and start using some DI container, the best solution would be using option 3 (as it was already stated) and configuring container accordingly to provide the correct value. Some good ideas of how to do this in an elegant way can be found in the answer to this question
I am putting together a built-in script capability using the excellent Pascal DWScript. I have also add my own Delphi-side class definition (TDemo) to DWScript using:
dwsUnit.ExposeRTTI( TDemo.ClassInfo )
This just works and is a great way of quickly adding properties and methods.
I also wish to add an existing instance in a similar way, so I have created my instance FDemo of type TDemo and then performed:
dwsUnit.ExposeInstanceToUnit( 'Demo', 'TDemo', FDemo );
This looks a promising routine to call but I get an AV from an uninitialised unit table. I've also looked in the unit test code of the SVN source to see the use of this function but to no avail. Can anyone point me at what I should add / change?
ExposeInstanceToUnit has to be used from within the TdwsUnit table initialization, see RTTIExposeTests/ExposeInstancesAfterInitTable for some sample code. It allows directly exposing dynamic instances.
The other approach is to use the Instances collection of a TdwsUnit component, you get design-time support, and more controls over your instances and their lifetime.
Also keep in mind you have to make sure the instances you expose will properly behave even if the script misbehaves, f.i. when the user attempts to manually destroys an instance you exposed, and that instance shouldn't be destroyed. By default ExposeRTTI will map the destructors, so you may want to restrict that by specifying eoNoFreeOnCleanup.
edit: a last approach recently added is to use the TdwsRttiConnector, which basically allows exposing and connection to anything that's reachable through RTTI. That's very lightweight in terms of code to setup, but the downside is you don't get any form of compile-time checks.
I am trying to make a taglib to represent an object (to read and display at the UI). When creating an object (save method in the controller), I see the domain class and association are created by the auto assignment of parameter
def Book = new Book(params)
It also maps complex types (for eg: joda time). I wonder about the naming convention necessary to facilitate this mapping. Out of curiosity, can someone also point where in the grails source code I could see how grails handles this mapping. I'm still learning Spring and probably this would be a good exercise.
Thanks,
Babu.
AFAIK the naming conventions are rather straightforward. If there's a field params.foo and the object you are binding to has a field foo, it will bind the value, assuming the type conversion works properly. If there's a params.bar.id set with an Long value and your object has a complex property of type Bar, it will lookup this instance and inject it.
If you need more control over the binding process, you might want to use bindData.
If you are interested into the details of the binding process, have a look at Java's PropertyEditor as this is what is being used in the background. I wrote a blog post on how to create and register PropertyEditors a while ago, maybe it helps you getting started with that stuff.
When coding, I often come across the following pattern:
-A method calls another method (Fine), but the method being called/callee takes parameters, so in the wrapping method, I pass in parameters. Problem is, this dependency carrying can go on and on. How could I avoid this (any sample code appreciated)?
Thanks
Passing a parameter along just because a lower-layer component needs it is a sign of a Leaky Abstraction. It can often be more effective to refactor dependencies to aggregate services and hide each dependency behind an interface.
Cross-cutting concerns (which are often the most common reason to pass along parameters) are best addressed by Decorators.
If you use a DI Container with interception capabilities, you can take advantage of those to implement Decorators very efficiently (some people refer to this as a container's AOP capabilities).
You can use a dependency injection framework. One such is Guice: see http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/
Step 1: Instead of passing everything as separate arguments, group the arguments into a class, let's say X.
Step 2: Add getters to the class X to get the relevant information. The callee should use the getters to get the information instead of relying on parameters.
Step 3: Create an interface class of which class X inherits. Put all the getters in the interface (in C++ this is as pure virtual methods).
Step 4: Make the called methods only depend on the interface.
Refactoring: Introduce Parameter Object
You have a group of parameters that naturally go together?
Replace them with an object.
http://www.refactoring.com/catalog/introduceParameterObject.html
The advantage of the parameter object is that the calls passing them around don't need to change if you add/remove parameters.
(given the context of your answers, I don't think that an IoC library or dependency injection patterns are really what you're after)
Since they cannot be (easily) unit tested, most developers choose to inject objects into Views. Since the views are not (normally) used to construct other views, that is where your DI chain ends. You may have the issue (which I have run into every once in ahwile) where you need to construct objects in the correct order especially when using a DI framework like Unity where an attemt to resolve the object will deadlock. The main thing you need to worry about is circular dependency. In order to do this, read the following article:
Can dependency injection prevent a circular dependency?