Dropwizard and Guice: injecting Environment - dependency-injection

I am currently building a Dropwizard + Guice + Jersey-based application where the database access is being handled by JDBI for the time being.
What I am trying to achieve is to have your typical enterprise architecture, where Resources access Service classes accessing a DAO class that in turn accesses the database. It would be nice to get all this wired up in a proper DI way, although I guess I can build my object graph in the run() method of the application if all else fails.
So, I'm running into this problem that has been mentioned here before: Getting a DBIFactory requires both the Environment and the Configuration, which somehow need to be available at the time when Guice does its injection magic and not at run()-time.
Being a Dropwizard and Guice noob, what I've managed to put together so far is that I need a Provider for my DAO objects, something to the tune of
public class UserDAOProvider implements Provider<UserDAO> {
#Inject
Environment environment;
#Inject
Configuration configuration;
#Override
public UserDAO get() {
final DBIFactory factory = new DBIFactory();
final (MyConfiguration) config = (MyConfiguration) configuration;
DBI jdbi = null;
try {
jdbi = factory.build(environment, config.getDataSourceFactory(),
"mysql");
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
return jdbi.onDemand(UserDAO.class);
}
}
Registering this as a singleton provider should let me then inject the UserDAO into my Services.
Now, how do we actually get the environment injected into the Provider? Currently I am stuck at Guice complaining about not finding a suitable constructor for the Environment, so it is trying to instantiate it and not grab it from Dropwizard itself.
It seems like this is doable; there is the dropwizard-guice package whose DropWizardEnvironmentModule is, I think, what I need. But I feel like I'm just missing some piece of the puzzle here for an understanding of how to put things together. I've not managed to find a complete working example so far...

I had the same issue as OP but using Hibernate rather than JDBI. My simple solution is applicable to JDBI, though - just switch DBIFactory for SessionFactory.
First add an injection provider for a singleton SessionFactory in your Guice module:
public class MyModule extends AbstractModule {
private SessionFactory sessionFactory;
#Override
protected void configure() {
}
#Provides
SessionFactory providesSessionFactory() {
if (sessionFactory == null) {
throw new ProvisionException("The Hibernate session factory has not yet been set. This is likely caused by forgetting to call setSessionFactory during Application.run()");
}
return sessionFactory;
}
public void setSessionFactory(SessionFactory sessionFactory) {
this.sessionFactory = sessionFactory;
}
}
You need to set the singleton SessionFactory from your application's run() method. In your case, using JDBI, this is where you would create and configure your DBIFactory before handing it over to the Guice module:
public void run(MyConfiguration configuration, Environment environment) {
myModule.setSessionFactory(hibernateBundle.getSessionFactory());
...
}
Now SessionFactory can be injected wherever it is needed. I now use implicit binding for my DAO classes by just annotating the constructor with #Inject and injecting the SessionFactory singleton. I don't explicitly create providers for DAO classes:
#Singleton
public class WidgetDAO extends AbstractDAO<App> {
#Inject
public WidgetDAO(SessionFactory factory) {
super(factory);
}
public Optional<Widget> findById(Long id) {
return Optional.fromNullable(get(id));
}
...
}
Now I can inject my DAO singleton instances into resources:
#Path("/widgets")
#Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
public class WidgetsResource {
private final WidgetDAO widgetDAO;
#Inject
public WidgetsResource(WidgetDAO widgetDAO) {
this.widgetDAO = widgetDAO;
}
...
}
Note that this approach follows the Guice recommendation of injecting direct dependencies only. Don't try to inject Envrionment and Configuration just so that you can create a DBI factory - inject the prebuilt DBI factory itself.

This is how I use Guice with Dropwizard. Inside your run() method add the line
Guice.createInjector(new ConsoleModule());
You cannot inject Environ
Create the class ConsoleModule
public class ConsoleModule extends AbstractModule {
//configuration and env variable declaration
public ConsoleModule(ConsoleConfiguration consoleConfig, Environment env)
{
this.consoleConfig = consoleConfig;
this.env= env;
}
protected void configure()
{
//You should not inject Configuration and Environment in your provider since you are mixing
//dropwizard framework stuff with Guice.Neverthless you will have to bind them in the below order
bind(Configuration.class).toInstance(consoleConfig.class);
bind(Environment.class).toInstance(env.class);
bind(UserDAO.class).toProvider(UserDAOProvider.class).in(Singleton.class);
}
}

We have the same configuration (dw-jdbi-guice) and also an abstract 'base' Application class which complicates things even more.
Since a lot of things happen during run method, and many things depend on the configuration objects we ended up creating the injector in the run method. But since we need objects from bootsrap also (e.g. ObjectMapper), we ended up having a List<Module> field in the Application class. Not the prettiest solution but can handle variety of scenarios.

Related

Resolve all already created service instances from .NET service provider

I would like to request all created instances from a transient service via the IServiceProvdier. My problem is that requesting them seems to create additional instances instead of retrieving only the already existing instances.
I have a service interface and implementation
public interface ISomeService {}
public class SomeService : ISomeService
{
public SomeService()
{
}
}
It is registered transient
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddTransient<ISomeService, SomeService>();
}
Another service where I try to get all already created services
public class AnotherService
{
// calls the constructor of SomeService
//public AnotherService(IEnumerable<ISomeService> instances) {}
public AnotherService(IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
// calls the constructor of SomeService
//IEnumerable<ISomeService> instances = serviceProvider.GetServices<ISomeService>();
// calls the constructor of SomeService
//IEnumerable<ISomeService> instances = serviceProvider.GetRequiredServices<ISomeService>();
}
}
I don't know why the constructor of SomeService is called but it definitly seems to do it due to the calls of Get...
Anyone managed to get the list of instances without creating one?
By definition a transient service will always be created each time you request the service provider or the DI system to resolve it.
If you want to reuse the same instances you can register services with a different lifetime
services.AddSingleton<ISomeService, SomeService>();
or
services.AddScoped<ISomeService, SomeService>();
if you register the dependency as a singleton than there will be a single instance of there service for the entire application lifetime.
if you register the dependency with the scoped lifetime than a new instance will be created for each scope. In Asp.Net a scope consists of a request.
If you want your dependency to be transient and want to have track of all the instances that have been created you can do a little trick using static references:
public static class SomeServiceReferences {
public static readonly IList<ISomeService> References { get; } = new List<ISomeService>();
}
public class SomeService: ISomeService {
public SomeService() {
SsomeServiceReferences.References.Add(this);
}
}
but I don't reccomend this approach cause holding the reference of those dependencies might cause performance problems and if you need to do such a thing there might be some problems with the design of your application.

DI parameters to class library without controller

So I'm not sure if I'm just missing something, but basically every example of DI I see with asp.net core shows passing of parameters from the appSettings.json file through a constructor in the controller and then to anything else.
Can I bypass the Controller and just inject directly a Class Library?
For an example of what I'm trying to do, let's say I have appSettings.json with
"EmailSettings":{"smtpServer":"mail.example.com", "port":123, "sendErrorsTo":"errors#example.com"}
Then a Class Library for EmailServices
EmailSettings.cs
public class EmailSettings{
public string smtpServer {get;set;}
public int port {get;set;}
public string sendErrorsTo {get;set;}
}
IEmailService.cs
public interface IEmailService
{
void SendErrorEmail(string method, Exception ex);
}
and EmailService.cs
public class EmailService :IEmailService
{
private readonly EmailSettings _emailSettings;
public EmailService(EmailSettings emailSettings)
{
_emailSettings = emailSettings;
}
public void SendErrorEmail(string method, Exception ex)
{
....
}
}
Startup.cs in the main asp.net core application
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
...
services.Configure<EmailSettings>(Configuration.GetSection("EmailSettings"));
services.AddScoped<IEmailService, EmailService>(p => {
return new EmailService(p.GetService<EmailSettings>());
});
...
}
Without loading the EmailServices or the appsetting.json parameters through the controller and then into the BusinessLayer class library, I want to be able to call the SendErrorEmail from BusinessLayer (or any other place).
DoWork.cs
public MakeItWork()
{
try
{...}
catch (exception ex)
{
IEmailService.SendErrorEmail("BAL - MakeItWork",ex)
}
}
But it just fails with a null exception. The DI in the startup doesn't create the EmailService in place of the IEmailService, and I'm going to guess the parameters are not there either.
Thanks for any help you can give.
----EDIT----
I ended up just switching to using AutoFac for DI. It's able to accomplish what I was looking for. Accepted the answer below to give Phantom the points for trying to assist.
A couple of things:
In your MakeItWork() method, you have code that "calls" a method using the interface name - not even sure how that will compile. You need to use an object of a class that implements that interface to actually make method calls at runtime. For example, in your DoWork class, you could have a constructor requesting for an instance of a class that implements the IEmailService interface and store it for future use in other methods.
Second, in the Services collection, you are adding a "Scoped" dependency (in the ConfigureServices method). A "scoped" dependency is only created upon a (http)Request, typically via calls to controllers. From your code and your explanation, it looks like you are wanting to add a Singleton object for your IEmailService interface. So, instead of adding a Scoped dependency use AddSingleton - as you have done, you can also create the specific object in the call to AddSingleton - that means this object will be provided every time you request it (through class constructors, for example). If you are using it as a singleton, you should also make sure that it is thread safe. Alternatively, you can also add the dependency using AddTransient - if you use this, a new object will be created every time you request it.
Update:
Sample Code
Modify your ConfigureServices to make the EmailService as Transient (this means a new object every time this service is requested):
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
...
services.Configure<EmailSettings>(Configuration.GetSection("EmailSettings"));
services.AddTransient<IEmailService, EmailService>();
...
}
Your "DoWork" class should request the EMail Service in the constructor:
public class DoWork()
{
private IEmailService _emailService;
//Dependency should be injected here
public DoWork(IEmailService emailService)
{
_emailService = emailService;
}
public MakeItWork()
{
try
{...}
catch (exception ex)
{
//Use the saved email service object to do your work
_emailService.SendErrorEmail("BAL - MakeItWork", ex)
}
}
}
It doesn't end here. The question remains as to how you are going to create an Object of the DoWork class. For this, one idea is to create an interface for the DoWork class itself and then setup the container for that interface as well. Then wherever you would want to use the DoWork implementation you can "request" the interface for DoWork. Or use the container directly to create an instance.

No default Instance is registered and cannot be automatically determined for type

The definition of my interface is as follows:
public interface IApplicationSettings
{
string LoggerName { get; }
string NumberOfResultsPerPage { get; }
string EmailAddress { get; }
string Credential { get; }
}
The implementation of this interface is given below:
public class WebConfigApplicationSettings : IApplicationSettings
{
public string LoggerName
{
get { return ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["LoggerName"]; }
}
public string NumberOfResultsPerPage
{
get { return ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["NumberOfResultsPerPage"]; }
}
public string EmailAddress
{
get { return ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["EmailAddress"]; }
}
public string Credential
{
get { return ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["Credential"]; }
}
}
I also created a factory class to obtain the instance of the concrete implementation of WebConfigSettings as follows:
public class ApplicationSettingsFactory
{
private static IApplicationSettings _applicationSettings;
public static void InitializeApplicationSettingsFactory(
IApplicationSettings applicationSettings)
{
_applicationSettings = applicationSettings;
}
public static IApplicationSettings GetApplicationSettings()
{
return _applicationSettings;
}
}
Then I resolved dependency as follows:
public class DefaultRegistry : Registry {
public DefaultRegistry() {
Scan(
scan => {
scan.TheCallingAssembly();
scan.WithDefaultConventions();
scan.With(new ControllerConvention());
});
For<IApplicationSettings>().Use<WebConfigApplicationSettings>();
ApplicationSettingsFactory.InitializeApplicationSettingsFactory
(ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IApplicationSettings>());
}
}
Now when i running my application it throw me following exception:
Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.
and the Inner Exception is
No default Instance is registered and cannot be automatically determined for type 'Shoppingcart.Infrastructure.Configuration.IApplicationSettings'\r\n\r\nThere is no configuration specified for Shoppingcart.Infrastructure.Configuration.IApplicationSettings\r\n\r\n1.) Container.GetInstance(Shoppingcart.Infrastructure.Configuration.IApplicationSettings)\r\n
I am using StructureMap for MVC5
The reason your code isn't working is because when you call ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IApplicationSettings>(), your registry hasn't been registered and thus, StructureMap's configuration is incomplete.
I believe what you're trying to do is the following (tested and works):
public class ApplicationSettingsFactory
{
public ApplicationSettingsFactory(WebConfigApplicationSettings applicationSettings)
{
_applicationSettings = applicationSettings;
}
private static IApplicationSettings _applicationSettings;
public IApplicationSettings GetApplicationSettings()
{
return _applicationSettings;
}
}
With your registry configured like this:
public DefaultRegistry() {
Scan(scan => {
scan.TheCallingAssembly();
scan.WithDefaultConventions();
scan.With(new ControllerConvention());
});
this.For<IApplicationSettings>().Use(ctx => ctx.GetInstance<ApplicationSettingsFactory>().GetApplicationSettings());
}
I can't really tell you why your registration fails in StructureMap, but if you allow me, I would like to feedback on your design.
Your design and code violates a few basic principles:
You are violating the Interface Segregation Princple (ISP).
The ISP describes that interfaces should be narrow (role interfaces) and should not contain more members than a consumer uses. You however defined an application wide IApplicationSettings interface and your intention is to inject into any consumer that needs some configuration settings. Changes are really slim however that there is a consumer that actually needs all settings. This forces the consumer to depend on all members, it makes the API more complex, while it just needs one.
You are violating the Open/Closed Principle (OCP).
The OCP describes that it should be possible to add new features without making changes to existing classes in the code base. You will however find yourself updating the IApplicationSettings interface and its implementations (you will probably have a fake/mock implementation as well) every time a new setting is added.
Configuration values aren't read at startup, which makes it harder to verify the application's configuration.
When a consumer makes a call to a property of your IApplicationSettings abstraction, you are forwarding the call to the ConfigurationManager.AppSettings. This means that if the value isn't available or incorrectly formatted, the application will fail at runtime. Since some of your configuration values will only be used in certain cases, this forces you to test every such case after you deployed the application to find out whether the system is configured correctly.
Solution
The solution to these problems is actually quite simple:
Load configuration values at start-up.
Inject configuration values directly into a component that needs that exact value.
Loading the configuration values directly at start-up, allows the application to fail fast in case of a configuration error, and prevents the configuration from being read over and over again needlessly.
Injecting configuration values directly into a component, prevents that component from having to depend on an ever-changing interface. It makes it really clear what a component is depending upon, and bakes this information in during application start-up.
This doesn't mean though that you can't use some sort of ApplicationSettings DTO. Such DTO is exactly what I use in my applications. This basically looks as follows:
public static Container Bootstrap() {
return Bootstrap(new ApplicationSettings
{
LoggerName = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["LoggerName"],
NumberOfResultsPerPage = int.Parse(
ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["NumberOfResultsPerPage"]),
EmailAddress = new MailAddres(
ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["EmailAddress"]),
Credential = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["Credential"],
});
}
public static Container Bootstrap(ApplicationSettings settings) {
var container = new Container();
container.RegisterSingle<ILogger>(
new SmtpLogger(settings.LoggerName, settings.EmailAddress));
container.RegisterSingle<IPagingProvider>(
new PagingProvider(settings.NumberOfResultsPerPage));
// Etc
return container;
}
In the code above you'll see that the creation of the ApplicationSettings DTO is split from the configuration of the container. This way I can test my DI configuration inside an integration test, where the start-up projects configuration file is not available.
Also note that I supply the configuration values directly to the constructors of components that require it.
You might be skeptic, because it might seem to pollute your DI configuration, because you have dozens of objects that require to be set with the same configuration value. For instance, your application might have dozens of repositories and each repository needs a connection string.
But my experience is that is you have many components that need the same configuration value; you are missing an abstraction. But don't create an IConnectionStringSettings class, because that would recreate the same problem again and in this case you aren't really making an abstraction. Instead, abstract the behavior that uses this configuration value! In the case of the connection string, create an IConnectionFactory or IDbContextFactory abstraction that allows creation of SqlConnection's or DbContext classes. This completely hides the fact that there is a connection string from any consumer, and allows them to call connectionFactory.CreateConnection() instead of having to fiddle around with the connection and the connection string.
My experience is that makes the application code much cleaner, and improves the verifiability of the application.
Thanks every one for responses. I found my solution. The solution is instead of using Default Registry I created another class for resolve the dependencies. Inside the class I used
ObjectFactory.Initialize(x =>
{
x.AddRegistry<ControllerRegistry>();
});
instead of
IContainer Initialize() {
return new Container(c => c.AddRegistry<ControllerRegistry>());
}
Then inside ControllerRegistry I resolved dependencies as follows:
// Application Settings
For<IApplicationSettings>().Use<WebConfigApplicationSettings>();
Then I called that class inside Global.asax as follows:
Bootstrap.ConfigureDependencies();
Finally inside Global.asax I resolved dependency for Factory class as follows:
ApplicationSettingsFactory.InitializeApplicationSettingsFactory
(ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IApplicationSettings>());
My entire code is given below:
Bootstrap class (newly created)
public class Bootstrap
{
public static void ConfigureDependencies()
{
ObjectFactory.Initialize(x =>
{
x.AddRegistry<ControllerRegistry>();
});
}
public class ControllerRegistry : Registry
{
public ControllerRegistry()
{
// Application Settings
For<IApplicationSettings>().Use<WebConfigApplicationSettings>();
}
}
}
Global.asax
Bootstrap.ConfigureDependencies();
ApplicationSettingsFactory.InitializeApplicationSettingsFactory
(ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IApplicationSettings>());

Service configured in spring/resources.groovy does not have a Hibernate session

We have an application with a plugin which contains a service:
public class TaskService {
public void doSomething( Task task ) {
// do something with task
task.save();
}
}
This works fine.
For our "special" customer with his special requirements we have a second application which contains the plugin from the first application and another plugin with a special service for this customer which extends the original service and overrides some methods:
public class SpecialTaskService extends TaskService{
#Override
public void doSomething( Task task ) {
// do something special with task
task.save();
}
}
In every place in the second application where taskService is injected we want to have the SpecialTaskService now (also in the plugin from the first application). So we have added the special service to the resources.groovy under grails-app/conf/spring:
beans = {
taskService( SpecialTaskService )
}
But now we get an HibernateException when we call "task.save()" in the special service:
org.hibernate.HibernateException: No Hibernate Session bound to thread, and configuration does not allow creation of non-transactional one here
We know that we could inject a SessionFactory into the SpecialService, but when we call sessionFactory.currentSession we get the same Exception.
The exception also occurs when we configure a service in resources.groovy which does not extend another one.
Is there a way to make the special service some kind of "hibernateSessionAware" so that we can call save() and merge() on domain objects?
The original service is transactional, so it keeps a Hibernate session open for the duration of the method call (unless one is already active and it has joined that). So you need to make yours transactional too since you're just telling Spring to create a plain new instance with taskService(SpecialTaskService)
The simplest thing to do is annotate the class (or individual methods if you prefer):
import org.springframework.transaction.annotation.Transactional
#Transactional
class SpecialTaskService extends TaskService {
#Override
void doSomething(Task task) {
// do something special with task
task.save()
}
}
but you can also wrap code blocks or entire methods in withTransaction blocks:
class SpecialTaskService extends TaskService {
#Override
void doSomething(Task task) {
Task.withTransaction { status ->
// do something special with task
task.save()
}
}
}

Injection question when using Ninject 2 in ASP.NET MVC application

I'm using Ninject 2 with an ASP.NET MVC web app. All the dependencies are handled properly down the stack (Controllers->Services->Repositories). However I have some classes in the Services project that aren't in that "chain" that I also want to inject when the app starts. How do I get Ninject to recognize them? I have public properties with [Inject] attributes but when the app runs, they're null. What am I missing?
Here is my MvcApplication class:
public class MvcApplication : NinjectHttpApplication
{
protected override void OnApplicationStarted() {
RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);
RegisterAllControllersIn(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
}
protected override IKernel CreateKernel() {
var modules = new INinjectModule[] {
new Services.ServiceModule(),
new Data.DataModule()
};
var kernel = new StandardKernel(modules);
return kernel;
}
// route registration removed
}
I double checked both modules to make sure that the correct bindings exist.
Sample from a module:
public class ServiceModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load() {
Bind<IAccountService>().To<AccountService>();
....
}
}
In order for Ninject to inject dependencies, you have to create the object using the kernel. That's easy for objects in the natural dependency chain (ie. in your app, Controllers->Services->Repositories), but can be tricky for those outside of it.
You have to either add the additional types as dependencies of one of the types that is created in the natural chain, or somehow get a hook on the kernel and call Get<T>. To do that, you might have to use a static service locator.
Are you overriding CreateKernel()? You need to do that and do your binding in there.

Resources