I have a requirement to create a simple REST API with basic CRUD operations on a resource, without using Spring but just Java.I use JAX-RS (Jersey implementation) and Jetty as an embedded servlet container.I use JPA (Hibernate implementation) and an H2 in-memory database. I don't use any DI framework so I do all the DI "manually" with new().
Below is a JAX-RS service that has a POST endpoint. I have created the repository as a static final variable inside the service. BookRepository is an interface and BookRepositoryImpl is the implementation of this repository. I wonder if this is the best approach. If I did this with Spring Autowired annotation, I would have a singleton repository so the only way I thought to emulate this is with a static final variable.
When the container runs, does a separate instance of the BookService gets created for each request (thread)?
So multiple threads will have access to a single copy of the bookRepository?
Isn't that what happens with the Autowired and singleton scope?
#Path("/books")
public class BookService {
private static final BookRepository bookRepository = new BookRepositoryImpl();
#POST
#Path("")
#Consumes(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
#Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
public Book registerBook(Book b) {
return bookRepository.saveBook(b);
}
}
Applying Dependency Injection without a DI Container is a practice commonly referred to as Pure DI. With that approach you apply the same principles, practices, and patterns of object-oriented design and DI. But instead of wiring everything up using a DI Container, at the startup path of the application, you build your object graphs manually, using the new keyword.
Pure DI is a common—and valid—approach of practicing DI—DI Containers are useful, but optional tools.
This, however, is not the approach you are currently practicing. You are not injecting your dependencies into their consumers. By creating BookRepositoryImpl inside the BookService class, you are applying the Control Freak anti-pattern, with is a special form of a Dependency Inversion Principle violation. This tightly couples the BookRepositoryImpl class to the BookService class, which will likely cause maintainability issues, because BookRepositoryImpl is a Volatile Dependency. Volatile Dependencies are the reason we introduce abstractions and use Dependency Injection.
Besides, the use of static fields only magnifies the pain, because this might cause thread-safety issues in case BookRepositoryImpl (or one of its dependencies) isn't thread-safe.
So, instead of tightly coupling BookRepositoryImpl to BookService, you should inject the BookRepository abstraction into the BookService's constructor. This keeps the two components loosely coupled, and gives you all the benefits that loose coupling brings:
#Path("/books")
public class BookService {
private final BookRepository bookRepository;
public BookService(BookRepository bookRepository) {
this.bookRepository = bookRepository;
}
#POST
#Path("")
#Consumes(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
#Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
public Book registerBook(Book b) {
return bookRepository.saveBook(b);
}
}
This does mean, however, that you should override the way your REST API web framework creates that service. Such framework is typically only able to create instances on your behalf if they have a default constructor. I must admit that I have no experience with JAX-RS, but most frameworks allow overriding the creation of their root classes. With the Microsoft ASP.NET MVC framework, for instance, you can implement a custom IControllerFactory, and replace the framework's default implementation. Inside your custom factory, you will create the complete tree by hand, with plain old Java.
public object create(Type controllerType)
{
if (controllerType == typeof(HomeService))
return
new HomeService(
new PersonsRepositoryImpl(this.connectionString));
if (controllerType == typeof(BookService))
return
new BookService(
new BookRepositoryImpl(this.connectionString));
if (...)
throw new InvalidOperationException("Unknown type.");
}
My expectation is that JAX-RS contains a similar extension model, which allows you to practice Pure DI.
Thanks Steven for the answer. To conclude, this is the JAX-RS config where I am doing the DI:
public class AppConfig extends ResourceConfig {
public AppConfig() {
EntityManagerFactory emf = Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("my-unit");
BookRepository bookRepository = new BookRepositoryImpl(emf);
BookService bookService = new BookService(bookRepository);
register(bookService);
}
}
Related
I'm struggling with a particular dependency injection problem and I just can't seem to figure it out. FYI: I'm new to guice, but I have experience with other DI frameworks - that's why I believe this shouldn't be to complicated to achieve.
What am I doing:
I'm working on Lagom multi module project and using Guice as DI.
What I would like to achieve:
Inject multiple named instances of some interface implementation (lets' call it publisher, since it will publishing messages to kafka topic) to my service.
This 'publisher' has injected some Lagom and Akka related services (ServiceLocator, ActorSystem, Materializer, etc..).
Now I would like to have two instances of such publisher and each will publish messages to different topic (So one publisher instance per topic).
How would I achieve that?
I have no problem with one instance or multiple instances for the same topic, but if I want to inject different topic name for each instance I have a problem.
So my publisher implementation constructor looks like that:
#Inject
public PublisherImpl(
#Named("topicName") String topic,
ServiceLocator serviceLocator,
ActorSystem actorSystem,
Materializer materializer,
ApplicationLifecycle applicationLifecycle) {
...
}
If I want to create one instance I would do it like this in my ServiceModule:
public class FeedListenerServiceModule extends AbstractModule implements ServiceGuiceSupport {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bindService(MyService.class, MyServiceImpl.class);
bindConstant().annotatedWith(Names.named("topicName")).to("topicOne");
bind(Publisher.class).annotatedWith(Names.named("publisherOne")).to(PublisherImpl.class);
}
}
How would I bind multiple publishers each for it's own topic?
I was playing around with implementing another private module:
public class PublisherModule extends PrivateModule {
private String publisherName;
private String topicName;
public PublisherModule(String publisherName, String topicName) {
this.publisherName = publisherName;
this.topicName = topicName;
}
#Override
protected void configure() {
bindConstant().annotatedWith(Names.named("topicName")).to(topicName);
bind(Publisher.class).annotatedWith(Names.named(publisherName)).to(PublisherImpl.class);
}
}
but this led me nowhere since you can't get injector in you module configuration method:
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(this); // This will throw IllegalStateException : Re-entry is not allowed
injector.createChildInjector(
new PublisherModule("publisherOne", "topicOne"),
new PublisherModule("publisherTwo", "topicTwo"));
The only solution which is easy and it works is that I change my PublisherImpl to abstract, add him abstract 'getTopic()' method and add two more implementations with topic override.
But this solution is lame. Adding additional inheritance for code reuse is not exactly the best practice. Also I believe that Guice for sure must support such feature.
Any advises are welcome.
KR, Nejc
Don't create a new Injector within a configure method. Instead, install the new modules you create. No child injectors needed—as in the PrivateModule documentation, "Private modules are implemented using parent injectors", so there's a child injector involved anyway.
install(new PublisherModule("publisherOne", "topicOne"));
install(new PublisherModule("publisherTwo", "topicTwo"));
Your technique of using PrivateModule is the one I'd go with in this situation, particularly given the desire to make the bindings available through binding annotations as you have it, and particularly if the full set of topics is known at runtime. You could even put the call to install in a loop.
However, if you need an arbitrary number of implementations, you may want to create an injectable factory or provider to which you can pass a String set at runtime.
public class PublisherProvider {
// You can inject Provider<T> for all T bindings in Guice, automatically, which
// lets you configure in your Module whether or not instances are shared.
#Inject private final Provider<ServiceLocator> serviceLocatorProvider;
// ...
private final Map<String, Publisher> publisherMap = new HashMap<>();
public Publisher publisherFor(String topicName) {
if (publisherMap.containsKey(topicName)) {
return publisherMap.get(topicName);
} else {
PublisherImpl publisherImpl = new PublisherImpl(
topicName, serviceLocatorProvider.get(), actorSystemProvider.get(),
materializerProvider.get(), applicationLifecycleProvider.get());
publisherMap.put(topicName, publisherImpl);
return publisherImpl;
}
}
}
You'd probably want to make the above thread-safe; in addition, you can avoid the explicit constructor call by using assisted injection (FactoryModuleBuilder) or AutoFactory, which will automatically pass through explicit parameters like topicName while injecting DI providers like ServiceLocator (which hopefully has a specific purpose, because you may not need much service-locating within a DI framework anyway!).
(Side note: Don't forget to expose your annotated binding for your PrivateModule. If you don't find yourself injecting your topicName anywhere else, you might also consider using individual #Provides methods with the assisted injection or AutoFactory approach above, but if you expect each Publisher to need a differing object graph you might choose the PrivateModule approach anyway.)
Guice's approach to dependency injection is that the DI framework complements your instantiation logic, it doesn't replace it. Where it can, it will instantiate things for you, but it doesn't try to be too clever about it. It also doesn't confuse configuration (topic names) with dependency injection - it does one thing, DI, and does that one thing well. So you can't use it to configure things, the way you can with Spring for example.
So if you want to instantiate an object with two different parameters, then you instantiate that object with two different parameters - ie, you invoke new twice. This can be done by using provider methods, which are documented here:
https://github.com/google/guice/wiki/ProvidesMethods
In your case, it might look something like adding the following method to your module:
#Provides
#Named("publisherOne")
#Singleton
Publisher providePublisherOne(ServiceLocator serviceLocator,
ActorSystem actorSystem,
Materializer materializer,
ApplicationLifecycle applicationLifecycle) {
return new PublisherImpl("topicOne", serviceLocator,
actorSystem, materializer, applicationLifecycle);
}
Also, you probably want it to be a singleton if you're adding a lifecycle hook, otherwise you could run into memory leaks each time you add a new hook every time it's instantiated.
I've got an ASP.NET 5 dnxcore solution with some projects to separate my logic:
API
Core (with services for business logic)
DAL (repository interfaces)
Entity Framework (the repositories implementations)
Now I use DI to call my services in the constructors of my API controllers:
private readonly IMyService _myService;
public Controller(IMyService myservice){ _myService = myService; }
The services in my core get the repository thru constructor injection too:
private readonly IMyRepository _myRepo;
public MyService(IMyRepository myRepo){ _myRepo = myRepo; }
Currently I need to define my DI container in the startup class of my API to make it work.
My question is, how can I put the 'building' of the DI container of the repositories in my services in my Core-project. This way, my API is loosely coupled of the fact that my services use Entity Framework, so I can change to, for example, mongodb without changing my API project.
My question is, how can I put the 'building' of the DI container of the repositories in my services in my Core-project. This way, my API is loosely coupled of the fact that my services use Entity Framework, so I can change to, for example, mongodb without changing my API project.
You could, but you shouldn't do that.
Dependency Injection is the practice of making loosely-coupled classes throughout the libraries that can be plugged together (often in many ways).
However, each application should have a composition root, which is the one place in the application where we put the coupling code. Our first instinct as developers is to try to farm the coupling code off into its own library, but that is an urge that you should resist. See composition root reuse.
Mark Seeman's illustration sums it up well. Avoiding transitive dependencies is what is desired when using DI in order to flatten the dependency graph. This ensures assemblies can be used/tested in isolation without dragging along unnecessary dependencies, which in turn makes maintenance easier.
That said, many DI containers have a way to organize the configuration of certain parts of the application by using modules. In Autofac, the documentation for modules is here.
You can easily add an extension method of IServiceCollection into your services layer and use it to register its own dependencies.
Then in the startup you just call the method on the service layer without having any reference to EntityFramework in your web app.
using Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection;
using Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Extensions;
namespace your.service.layer
{
public static class MyServiceCollectionExtensions
{
public static IServiceCollection AddMyServiceDependencies(this IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddScoped<My.Data.Tier.DbContext, My.Data.Tier.DbContext>();
}
}
}
Startup:
using your.service.layer;
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddMyServiceDependencies();
}
Now your web app only needs a reference to your service layer and it is not directly dependent on EntityFramework.
As NightOwl888 have said, you should have a CompositionRoot in your application, the place where all your dependencies are set.
What I did is this:
1. Create a Core Class Library named CompositionRoot.
2. Add a class to handle your dependencies:
public class DependencyMapper
{
public static void SetDependencies(IServiceCollection serviceCollection, IConfigurationRoot configuration)
{
serviceCollection.AddEntityFramework()
.AddDbContext<SonoPeopleContext>(options =>
options.UseSqlServer(configuration["Data:DefaultConnection:ConnectionString"])
);
MapperConfiguration mapperConfiguration = new MapperConfiguration(cfg =>
{
cfg.AddProfile(new AutoMapperProfileConfiguration());
});
serviceCollection.AddSingleton<IMapper>(sp => mapperConfiguration.CreateMapper());
serviceCollection.AddScoped<IUserService, UserService>();
}
}
Then you reference your CompositionRoot in your MVC project and in your Startup.cs you just do
DependencyMapper.SetDependencies(services, Configuration);
That's all.
See this question, I have the same problem because my application is DB agnostic and base on the request will need to switch between a document oriented database (noSQL) and transaccional database (SQL).
I am new to Repository and DI and trying to implement in my MVC 5 project.
I implemented Constructor Injection where in my controller has a constructor like this:
IBook _ibook;
public Test(IBook ibook)
{
_ibook = ibook;
}
Without any DI library, it throws an error: There is no empty constructor.
To avoid this, I added one more constructor as below:
public Test ():this(new Book())
{
}
Since I am new to DI, I don't want to risk my project by using DI library which can later throw some error that I may not be able to resolve.
I want to know what issues I might encounter if I am not using DI library.
In case it is recommended, which DI library is good for beginners? I have seen few videos of NInject and Unity.
It is a good idea to delay any decision to use some kind of tool or library until the last responsible moment. With a good design you can add a DI library later on. This means that you practice Pure DI.
The preferred interception point in MVC is the IControllerFactory abstraction since it allows you to intercept the creation of MVC controllers, and doing so prevents you from having to implement a second constructor (which is an anti-pattern). Although it is possible to use IDependencyResolver, the use of that abstraction is much less convenient because it is also called by MVC to resolve things you are typically not interested in.
A custom IControllerFactory that will act as your Composition Root can be implemented as follows:
public sealed class CompositionRoot : DefaultControllerFactory
{
private static string connectionString =
ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["app"].ConnectionString;
private static Func<BooksContext> bookContextProvider = GetCurrentBooksContext;
private static IBookRepository bookRepo = new BookRepository(bookContextProvider);
private static IOrderBookHandler orderBookHandler = new OrderBookHandler(bookRepo);
protected override IController GetControllerInstance(RequestContext _, Type type) {
// Unfortunately, because of MVC's design, controllers are not stateless, and
// you will have to create them per request.
if (type == typeof(OrderBookController))
return new HomeController(orderBookHandler);
if (type == typeof(BooksController))
return new BooksController(bookRepo);
// [other controllers here]
return base.GetControllerInstance(_, type);
}
private static BooksContext GetCurrentBooksContext() {
return GetRequestItem<BooksContext>(() => new BooksContext(connectionString));
}
private static T GetRequestItem<T>(Func<T> valueFactory) where T : class {
var context = HttpContext.Current;
if (context == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("No web request.");
var val = (T)context.Items[typeof(T).Name];
if (val == null) context.Items[typeof(T).Name] = val = valueFactory();
return val;
}
}
Your new controller factory can be hooked into MVC as follows:
public class MvcApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
protected void Application_Start() {
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new CompositionRoot());
// the usual stuff here
}
}
When you practice Pure DI, you will typically see your Composition Root consist of a big list of if statements. One statement per root object in your application.
Starting off with Pure DI has some interesting advantages. The most prominent one is compile time support, because this is something you will lose immediately when you start using a DI library. Some libraries try minimize this loss by allowing you to verify your configuration in a way that the compiler would do; but this verification is done at runtime and the feedback cycle is never as short as that which the compiler can give you.
Please don't be tempted to simplify development by implementing some mechanism that allows creating types using reflection, because in doing so you are building your own DI library. There are many downsides to this, e.g. you lose compile time support while not getting back any of the benefits that an existing DI library can give you.
When your Composition Root is starting to get hard to maintain, that is the moment you should consider switching from Pure DI to a DI library.
Do note that in my example Composition Root, all application components (except for the controllers) are defined as singleton. Singleton means that the application will only have one instance of each component. This design needs your components to be stateless (and thus thread-safe), anything that has state (such as the BooksContext) should not be injected through the constructor. In the example I used a Func<T> as the provider of the BooksContext which is stored per request.
Making your object graphs singletons has many interesting advantages. For instance, it prevents you from making common configuration errors such as Captive Dependencies and it forces you into a more SOLID design. And besides, some DI libraries are very slow, and making everything a singleton might prevent performance problems when switching to a DI library later on. On the other hand, the downside of this design is that everybody on the team should understand that all components must be stateless. Storing state in components will cause needless grief and aggravation. My experience is that stateful components are much easier to detect than most DI configuration errors. I have also noticed that having singleton components is something that feels natural to most developers, especially those who aren't experienced with DI. For a detailed discussion on the two composition models to choose from and their downsides and advantages, take a look at this serie of blog posts.
Note that in the example I manually implemented a per-request lifestyle for the BooksContext. Although all DI libraries have out-of-the-box support for scoped lifestyles such as per-request lifestyles, I would argue against using those scoped lifestyles (except perhaps when the library guarantees to throw an exception instead of failing silently). Most libraries do not warn you when you resolve a scoped instance outside the context of an active scope (for instance resolving a per-request instance on a background thread). Some containers will return you a singleton instance, others return you a new instance each time you ask. This is really troublesome because it hides bugs and can cause you many hours trying to debug your application (I speak from experience here).
The simplest and sanest solution is to use Pure DI. With ASP.NET MVC, this is most easily done by deriving from DefaultControllerFactory and overriding GetControllerInstance:
protected override IController GetControllerInstance(
RequestContext requestContext, Type controllerType)
{
if (controllerType == typeof(Test))
return new Test(new Book());
return base.GetControllerInstance(requestContext, controllerType);
}
Then register your new Controller Factory in your Global.asax like this:
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new MyControllerFactory());
Unfortunately, much documentation will tell you to use IDependencyResolver, or Bastard Injection to deal with Dependency Injection, but these will not make your code more maintainable.
There are lots of more details, including examples of how to properly use Dependency Injection with ASP.NET MVC, in my book.
If you're only interested in Dependency Injection to achieve some level of abstraction, you're definitely not required to use any IoC framework.
If you don't care about scope, lifetime and nested dependencies, you may end up with something as primitive as this:
internal class MyBasicResolver : IDependencyResolver
{
private readonly Dictionary<Type, Type> _services = new Dictionary<Type, Type>()
{
{ typeof(IBook), typeof(Book) }
// more services registrations
};
public object GetService(Type serviceType)
{
return _services.ContainsKey(serviceType) ? Activator.CreateInstance(_services[serviceType]) : null;
}
public IEnumerable<object> GetServices(Type serviceType)
{
yield return GetService(serviceType);
}
}
Then register it as the current Dependency Resolver for MVC:
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new MyBasicResolver());
See MSDN
Ninject and unity provide object container, which contains object wich you have register at startup of the application,
But why you need to use di, Di states that two objects should not depend upon its concreation it should depend upon its abstraction, so if suppose in futere you need to replace Book class to eBook, here both the class has same function but it has diffrunt concreation at that time you need to just your di configuration you dont need to recode the controller for eBook.
I am using unity di in my most projects I didt face any issue which I cant resolve its easy and make practice to use that, dont be afraid for that.
I am in the process of migrating from StructureMap to Simple Injector in a ASP.NET MVC3 application.
I am using the MVC3 extension for controller DI, but I am running into an issue with trying to replace the static aspects of StructureMap. We have calls to
StructureMap.ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Interface>()
throughout different layers of the app. It does not look like Simple Injector has a way to do that.
Am I missing something? Or is Simple Injector not applicable for my application?
Please advise and thanks in advance.
Allowing the application to directly access the container is considered to be bad practice. It is an form of the Service Locator anti-pattern.
Because this is considered to be a bad thing, Simple Injector does not contain anything like StructureMap's ObjectFactory.GetInstance. And as a matter of fact, the author of StructureMap is considering the removal of the ObjectFactory API in a furure release of StructureMap.
However, nothing stops you from storing the SimpleInjector.Container instance in a static field and let the application use this:
// Service Locator implementation in low application layer.
public static class ObjectFactory
{
private static SimpleInjector.Container container;
public static void SetContainer(Container container)
{
ObjectFactory.container = container;
}
public static T GetInstance<T>() where T : class
{
return container.GetInstance<T>();
}
}
In Composition root:
public static void Initialize()
{
var container = new Container();
InitializeContainer(container);
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(
new SimpleInjectorDependencyResolver(container));
// Set the service locator here
ObjectFactory.SetContainer(container);
}
So there is no limitation in the Simple Injector that prevents you from doing this, but frankly, you are already witnessing one of the reasons why Service Locator is a bad thing: you switched containers and now you have to change application code.
Perhaps for now it is easiest for you to save the container in a static field (as shown in the example above), but please take the time to understand why this pattern is bad, and do refactor away from this pattern towards dependency injection (and especially constructor injection).
I've implemented a repository pattern with persistence ignorance. The repository implementation only interacts with my entity objects, IUnitOfWork and ITable<T> interfaces. The intention is that the IUnitOfWork isn't reused but represents a single transaction. So far, I've implemented in-memory as well as Linq-to-Sql versions of the IUnitOfWork and ITable<T>.
My problem is that due to the IUnitOfWork injection into the repository, I end up with needing to know how to instantiate a new IUnitOfWork where ever the repository is used. Since this is the primary piece that is supposed to be pluggable it feels like I've done something wrong. The general usage pattern is something like this:
FooUnitOfWork unitOfWork = new FooUnitOfWork();
Repository repos = new Repository(unitOfWork);
// ...act upon repos
unitOfWork.Save();
Now it appears that I need some other pattern to allow every repository usage in the app to obtain the correct unit of work (e.g. in-memory, L2S, etc.).
What is the most fitting pattern for this? I've looked at Fowler's discussion on the topic but none of his examples seem to be a clean fit. I already feel like the amount of abstraction that I have is more than I'd like so building yet another indirection seems excessive.
At the moment, I'm leaning toward some sort of app-wide provider which can be configured to produce the correct IUnitOfWork. Am I off-base or is this what is needed to truly be implementation agnostic?
Update: while this didn't really break down it ended up just producing a poor-man's IoC Container. I ended up just replacing all of these:
UnitOfWorkFactory.Create();
with the generalized Common Service Locator implementation:
Microsoft.Practices.ServiceLocation.ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<IUnitOfWork>();
This allowed me to create a library which uses Dependency Injection without forcing all users to use the same IoC framework.
Perhaps I should use a very simple factory where I can set a callback? It could have a set of static methods on it like this:
public static class UnitOfWorkFactory
{
private static Func<IUnitOfWork> FactoryMethod;
public static IUnitOfWork Create()
{
if (UnitOfWorkFactory.FactoryMethod == null)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("...");
}
return UnitOfWorkFactory.FactoryMethod();
}
public static void SetFactoryMethod(Func<IUnitOfWork> factory)
{
UnitOfWorkFactory.FactoryMethod = factory;
}
}
Where does this break down?
I would suggest using a Vistor pattern to discover the implementations of the IUnitOfWork interface.
[UnitOfWork(Name="foo")]
public class FooUnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork {}
Repository repo = new Repository("foo");
//stuff happens
repo.Save(); //or repo.Worker.Save();
Inside the repo instance a discovery factory finds the worker and creates it.