At the moment I have a Base class that contains a member I would like to inject. However, I would like the concrete type of this member to depend on the Subclass being instantiated. What I am aiming for is something along these lines:
public interface StringInterface {
public String getString();
}
public class HelloStringConcrete implements StringInterface {
public String getString() {
return "Hello";
}
}
public class WorldStringConcrete implements StringInterface {
public String getString() {
return "World";
}
}
public abstract class Base {
#Inject StringInterface member;
public Base() {
// Assume access to object graph
MyObjectGraph.get().inject(this);
}
public void printSomething() {
System.out.println(member.getString());
}
}
public class SubclassHello extends Base {}
public class SubclassWorld extends Base {}
#Module(injects = {SubclassHello.class})
public class HelloModule {
#Provides StringInterface provideStringInterface() {
return new HelloStringConcrete();
}
}
#Module(injects = {SubclassWorld.class})
public class WorldModule {
#Provides StringInterface provideStringInterface() {
return new WorldStringConcrete();
}
}
So now what I would like to do is something along the lines of:
#Module(
includes = {
HelloModule.class,
WorldModule.class
}
)
public class BigModule {}
// Somewhere in another piece of code...
objectGraph = ObjectGraph.create(new BigModule());
// In yet another piece of code...
SubclassHello hello = new SubclassHello();
SubclassWorld world = new SubclassWorld();
hello.printSomething();
world.printSomething();
// Hopefully would result in :
// Hello
// World
This type of setup won't work though, because including two modules with the same provider will result in a duplicate provider error at compile time. It would be cool to see a solution to this problem without introducing #Named or #Qualifer annotations, or using scoped graph extensions via graph.plus() because these strategies necessarily introduce coupling to the subclasses
This is possible but I think the code I've attached below is more coupled than using scoped graphs or annotations. Basically you can use constructor injection to inject concrete dependencies to your
SubclassHello and SubclassWorld.
public abstract class Base {
private final StringInterface member;
public Base(StringInterface member) {
this.member = member;
}
...
}
#Module(injects = {SubclassWorld.class})
public class WorldModule {
#Provides
WorldStringConcrete provideStringInterface() {
return new WorldStringConcrete();
}
}
public class SubclassWorld extends Base {
#Inject
public SubclassWorld(WorldStringConcrete worldStringConcrete) {
super(worldStringConcrete);
}
}
#Module(injects = {SubclassHello.class})
public class HelloModule {
#Provides
HelloStringConcrete provideStringInterface() {
return new HelloStringConcrete();
}
}
public class SubclassHello extends Base {
#Inject
public SubclassHello(HelloStringConcrete helloStringConcrete) {
super(helloStringConcrete);
}
}
// Somewhere in another piece of code...
ObjectGraph objectGraph = ObjectGraph.create(new BigModule());
// In yet another piece of code...
SubclassHello hello = objectGraph.get(SubclassHello.class);
SubclassWorld world = objectGraph.get(SubclassWorld.class);
I don't think there are other solutions. How could Dagger find out which StringInterface implementations should be injected to the concrete classes?
Related
I'm trying to create a viewmodel provider factory and I'm little bit lost. I've already added the required Nuget packages and my view models extend the AndroidViewModel type. Now, I'd like to create a factory that would use autofac to create the required view models from the OnCreate activitie's method. The creation call looks like this:
_viewModel = (ViewModelProviders.Of(this, _viewModelFactory)
.Get(Java.Lang.Class.FromType(typeof(MainActivityViewModel))) as JavaObjectWrapper<MainActivityViewModel>)
.Object;
Now, the factory:
public class ViewModelFactory : ViewModelProvider.AndroidViewModelFactory {
public ViewModelFactory(Application application) : base(application) {
}
public override Object Create(Class modelClass) {
// TODO: any way to get the .NET type that was passed here?
return base.Create(modelClass);
}
}
Can I retrieve the .NET type (MainActivityViewModel) from the Class instance that is passed into the Create method call (the type would be required to resolve it from the autofac container)? If there is, how can I do that?
Thanks.
This is how I do this with Unity, but this pattern can be used for passing anything through the ViewModel constructor:
The ViewModel itself
public class HomeViewModel : ViewModel
{
IUnityContainer _unityContainer;
public HomeViewModel(IUnityContainer unityContainer)
{
_unityContainer = unityContainer;
}
}
The HomeViewModelFactory (Default constructor required)
public class HomeViewModelFactory : Java.Lang.Object, ViewModelProvider.IFactory
{
IUnityContainer _unityContainer;
public HomeViewModelFactory()
{
}
public HomeViewModelFactory(IUnityContainer unityContainer)
{
_unityContainer = unityContainer;
}
public Java.Lang.Object Create(Class p0)
{
return _unityContainer.Resolve<HomeViewModel>();
}
}
Usage in Fragment
public override void OnActivityCreated(Bundle savedInstanceState)
{
base.OnActivityCreated(savedInstanceState);
var homeViewModelFactory = _unityContainer.Resolve<HomeViewModelFactory>();
_homeViewModel = ViewModelProviders.Of(this, homeViewModelFactory).Get(Java.Lang.Class.FromType(typeof(HomeViewModel))) as HomeViewModel;
}
Suppose we have two classes with same constructor Injectable dependency:
public class FirstClass
{
public FirstClass(ISomeDependency someDependency)
{ }
}
public class SecondClass
{
public SecondClass(ISomeDependency someDependency)
{ }
}
Now we have a registration for ISomeDependency:
builder.Register(x =>
{
string key = GetKeyFromCurrentHttpRequest();
// if "Caller" is "FirstClass" return new Dependency(key);
// else return new Dependency("defaultKey");
}).As<ISomeDependency>();
Note: This is a simplified use case. The real scenario is much more complicated.
1. How to get "Caller" type which tryies to resolve ISomeDependency?
2. Is there a better way design for such situations?
You can use delegate factories do achieve your goal. The only drawback is the FirstClass and SecondClass cannot use ISomeDependency as parameter.
You can try this code in a console application (just add Autofac dependency).
using System;
using Autofac;
namespace test
{
class MainClass
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
ContainerBuilder builder = new ContainerBuilder ();
builder.RegisterType<SomeDependency>().As<ISomeDependency>();
builder.RegisterType<FirstClass>();
builder.RegisterType<SecondClass>();
var container = builder.Build();
var dummy = container.Resolve<FirstClass>();
var dummy2 = container.Resolve<SecondClass>();
}
public interface ISomeDependency
{
}
public class SomeDependency : ISomeDependency
{
public delegate ISomeDependency Factory(string value);
private readonly string _value;
public SomeDependency(string value)
{
_value = value;
Console.WriteLine("Value = " + _value);
}
}
public class FirstClass
{
private ISomeDependency _dependency;
public FirstClass(SomeDependency.Factory factory)
{
_dependency = factory.Invoke("my value");
}
}
public class SecondClass
{
private ISomeDependency _dependency;
public SecondClass(SomeDependency.Factory factory)
{
_dependency = factory.Invoke("my value 2");
}
}
}
}
I'm new to CDI, tried searching for the usage, could not find anything and so posting the question. I'm trying to figure how I can inject an instance of a class with a parameterized constructor only using CDI. I'm not using Spring so, how it is done in spring does not help. Here is a sample I've created to show what's the issue. My #Inject will not work in this scenario.
public class A
{
public A(boolean deliverFromLocalWarehouse)
{
if(deliverFromLocalWarehouse)
{
wareHouseId = new Integer(10);
}
else
{
wareHouseId = new Integer(100);
}
}
public void deliver()
{
//get wareHouse address by Id and initiate delivery.
}
private Integer wareHouseId = null;
}
public class B
{
#Inject
private A a;
}
Thanks
Srikrishna Kalavacharla
If the constructor parameter should come from a bean, I think you can simply annotate it:
public A(#Inject boolean localWarehouse) { ...
and inject it with
#Inject A a;
If you want two different instances of A (with different constructor arguments), you could subclass them:
public AForLocalWarehouse extends A {
public AForLocalWarehouse() {
super(true);
}
}
and inject them with
#Inject AForLocalWarehouse a;
or use a producer method with qualifiers:
#Produces #LocalWarehouse
public A localWarehouse() { return new A(true); }
#Produces #RemoteWarehouse
public A remoteWarehouse() { return new A(false); }
and inject them with
#Inject #LocalWarehouse A a;
#Inject #RemoteWarehouse A a;
I have successfully setup a simple mvc application that lists teams. I'm using Ninject to inject the appropriate repository depending on the controller (thanks to stack overflow ;). All looks good, except that the repository code looks exactly the same. And I know that's wrong. So my TeamRepository has two classes (for now).
public class SwimTeamRepository : ITeamRepository<SwimTeam>
{
private readonly Table<SwimTeam> _teamTable;
public SwimTeamRepository(string connectionString)
{
_teamTable = (new DataContext(connectionString).GetTable<SwimTeam>());
}
public IQueryable<SwimTeam> Team
{
get { return _teamTable; }
}
}
public class SoccerTeamRepository : ITeamRepository<SoccerTeam>
{
private readonly Table<SoccerTeam> _teamTable;
public SoccerTeamRepository(string connectionString)
{
_teamTable = (new DataContext(connectionString).GetTable<SoccerTeam>());
}
public IQueryable<SoccerTeam> Team
{
get { return _teamTable; }
}
}
They look exactly the same except for the Class and Table name, so clearly I need to re-factor this. What would be the best approach here? Singleton? Factory Method?
Thanks in advance!
You could use generics:
public interface ITeamRepository<T>
{
}
public class TeamRepository<TTeam> : ITeamRepository<TTeam>
where TTeam : Team
{
private readonly Table<TTeam> _teamTable;
public TeamRepository(string connectionString)
{
_teamTable = (new DataContext(connectionString).GetTable<TTeam>());
}
public IQueryable<TTeam> Team
{
get { return _teamTable; }
}
}
public class Team
{
}
public class SwimTeam : Team
{
}
Then use it like so...
public void MyMethod()
{
var repository = new TeamRepository<SwimTeam>();
}
...and set up your IoC container w/ Ninject like so...
public class MyModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<ITeamRepository<SwimTeam>>
.To<TeamRepository<SwimTeam>>();
}
}
public void MyMethod()
{
var repository = kernel.Get<ITeamRepository<SwimTeam>>();
}
If you want to get REAL generic and have a single repository for ALL of your mapped classes, you can do something like this:
public interface IRepository
{
IQueryable<T> Get<T>() where T : class, new();
}
public class Repository : IRepository, IDisposable
{
private DataContext _dataContext;
public Repository(string connectionString)
{
_dataContext = new DataContext(connectionString);
}
public IQueryable<T> Get<T>()
where T : class, new()
{
return _dataContext.GetTable<T>().AsQueryable();
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_dataContext != null)
{
_dataContext.Dispose();
_dataContext = null;
}
}
}
...which you could call like so (after setting up your Ninject container)...
using (var repository = kernel.Get<IRepository>())
{
var swimTeam = repository.Get<SwimTeam>();
}
Since Ninject takes care of the life-cycle management of your objects, you don't HAVE to wrap the repository in a using statement. In fact, you don't want to use a using statement there at all if you plan to use the repository more than once within the scope of its lifetime. Ninject will automatically dispose of it when it's life-cycle ends.
Here's a good article by Rob Conery on using this kind of technique to reduce the friction of using different ORMs.
EDIT by keeg:
I Think
public class TeamRepository<TTeam> : ITeamRepository<TTeam> where TTeam : Team {}
Should be
public class TeamRepository<TTeam> : ITeamRepository<TTeam> where TTeam : class {}
Please correct if I'm wrong.
Is this what you want?
public class TeamRepository : ITeamRepository<T>
{
private readonly Table<T> _teamTable;
public TeamRepository(string connectionString)
{
_teamTable = (new DataContext(connectionString).GetTable<T>());
}
public IQueryable<T> Team
{
get { return _teamTable; }
}
}
In both association and aggregation, one class maintains a reference to another class.
Then, does constructor injection imply composition?
Going by the same logic, is it safe to say that setter injection leads to an association, and not an aggregation?
An aggregation is merely another representation of an association. So setter injection leads to an association and aggregation -- as does constructor injection.
It's debatable as to whether constructor injection implies composition since, according to a strict interpretation of composition, the class itself must be responsible for both the construction and destruction of the composite class.
At java code level if you have a class 2 and Class 3 this the expected code.
Traditional association 0..1 to 0..1 gives the following code:
public class Class2 {
private Class3 class3;
public Class3 getClass3() {
return class3;
}
public void setClass3(Class3 class3) {
this.class3 = class3;
}
}
Class 3 is the same code as Class 2.
Please note that association are related to attributes and not to methods therefore if we decide not to use accessors then the code would only be:
public class **Class2** {
private Class3 class3;
Aggregation 1 to many gives the following code:
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.Iterator;
public class Class2 {
private Collection<Class3> class3 = null;
public Collection<Class3> getClass3() {
return class3;
}
public Iterator<Class3> class3Iterator() {
return class3.iterator();
}
public boolean isClass3Empty() {
return class3.isEmpty();
}
public boolean containsClass3(Class3 class3) {
return this.class3.contains(class3);
}
public boolean containsAllClass3(Collection<Class3> class3) {
return this.class3.containsAll(class3);
}
public int class3Size() {
return class3.size();
}
public Class3[] class3ToArray() {
return class3.toArray(new Class3[class3.size()]);
}
public void setClass3(Collection<Class3> class3) {
this.class3 = class3;
}
public boolean addClass3(Class3 class3) {
return this.class3.add(class3);
}
public boolean removeClass3(Class3 class3) {
return this.class3.remove(class3);
}
public void clearClass3() {
this.class3.clear();
}
}
public class Class3 {
private Class2 class2 = null;
public Class2 getClass2() {
return class2;
}
public void setClass2(Class2 class2) {
this.class2 = class2;
}
}
Hope this helps