I am currently in the process of moving business logic from a controller method to a service, when I fell down the rabbit hole of grails services. I have the following method in my service:
Job closeJobOpportunity(Job op, Employee res) {
op.chosenOne = res
op.requisitionCanceledDate = new Date()
if(!op.chosenOne || !op.hrEffectiveDate){
return null
}
else if(StringUtils.isEmpty(op.chosenOne.id)){
return null
}
return op
}
I started thinking about the different ways this method could cause synchronization problems(because of grails making the service a singleton), and noticed the grails documentation mentions that business logic should be put in the service as long as you don't store the state.
At the risk of sounding ignorant or not well informed, can someone simply provide the differences between stateful and stateless services in Grails? Is the above method stateful? Should it then be surrounded by try catch in the controller?
The difference between stateful and stateless in a Grails service (or any other instance of a class for that matter) is determined by if the instance itself holds any state.
First, it's difficult to say if your Service in your example is stateless or not, but the interaction you have there in that particular method doesn't indicate that you are doing anything stateful with the service itself. That would lead me to believe that the service is going to be stateless.
Let me give you an example of a stateful service and explain why it's stateful.
class MyStatefulService {
Long someNumber
String someString
void doSomething(Long addMe) {
someNumber += addMe
}
void updateSomething(String newValue) {
someString = newValue
}
}
As you can see the above service has two properties. If this service is created as a singleton then all calls to it will use the same single instance. As you can see the two methods on the service effect the properties, or state, of the service. This means, in it's current form, you can't be sure that the state doesn't change while a particular thread is executing a method or methods of the service. Making it unreliable, in it's current form. While this is a very simple example it does demonstrate what makes a service stateful.
It's okay for services to have properties, and often they do. They can be references to other services or even configuration values. The key concept is to make sure they don't change state (there is always exceptions to this, but they are the edge cases).
It's entirely possible to rewrite the service to be stateful, synchronized and such to avoid the pitfalls of multiple threads accessing and modifying the state, but it's not something you should aim to do. Stateless services are simpler, cleaner, easier to test, easier to debug, and more lightweight.
In short, make your services stateless and save yourself the headaches.
I agree with the above answer that specifically details stateful vs stateless services. I'd also agree with the process of moving business logic out of the controller layer and avoiding the "fat controller" anti-pattern. However, to answer a slightly different, perhaps implied question, I wouldn't necessary jump to stuffing everything in the service layer.
It does depend on the complexity of your app. In the short term business logic at the service layer is appealing, but I feel like longer term it leads to procedural thinking and code that is hard to extend or reuse. If you're thinking about where actual business logic should live I'd encourage taking 30 minutes and watching this talk.
https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/4037-all-hail-the-command-object-are-stateless-services-the-only-way
Related
I'm updating a game from single player to multiplayer. In this case the game was originally written with most classes being single instanced. e.g. there was a single Player object, a single GameState object, etc. That is, each of these objects lived as long as the application.
Now that more than one player can play at once I obviously need to support creating more than one Player object, GameState object, etc. Over the course of working on this I have come to realize that most objects have one of three lifespans:
App's lifespan, e.g. a Conductor to handle navigation
Player's lifespan, e.g. the SettingsViewModel for the current player
Game's lifespan, e.g. the GameState for the current game
I'm curious how others deal with the creation of these different objects using an IoC container. I want to avoid creating factory classes for each class with a player or game lifespan.
Here is an example of IOC that may help. The project is called IOC-with-Ninject. It uses Ninject plus an IOC container class to manage all object life spans. You will need to do a little research on Ninject to customize it to your specific needs, but this is your IOC container solution (IMHO) if you are using .NET and will help you organize your code base. This is a personal choice, but I swear by it. If you are not using .NET it will still give you an easy pattern to follow. Cheers.
Many IoC containers have custom life-cycle scopes which you can manage as your wish. For example in Ninject you can define your custom life cycle scope as follows:
kernel.Bind<IService>().To<Service>().InScope((c, o) => yourCustomeScope);
As long as the yourCustomeScope variable has not changed, one single instance of the Service object is returned each time the kernel receives a request for IService. As soon as the yourCustomeScope variable changes, a new instance of Service will be created on the next request for IService. yourCustomeScope can be the current player instance, the game object or anything that you want to change the lifetime of the Service object, based on its reference change.
However, the objects that you just mentioned are more likely to be entities rather than services for which I don't think injection is a good idea.
From my experience the factories approach works the best.
Controlling lifespan of instance is clunky for support and requires efforts, knowledge of all of the classes lifespan requirements and dependencies, time for configuration and management of the configuration. In same time the use of factories is natural and code specific.
Factories (implementation) creation might be avoided by using proxy factories . You can also have factories returning generic arguments to further decrease the needs of factories (interfaces) creation.
If still too many factories are required I suggest reviewing the code flow.
I think this is in part a rehash of some of the comments of the previous answers but I have tried to exemplify expand a little on some of the reasoning.
Once you get into the domain of managing injected objects lifespan, you probably should be creating factories for these objects.
The underlying problem is that the composition root is not aware of what the environmental context of the call will be that needs to create the object.
I think I should take a step back and explain at this point.
Received wisdom on dependancy injection is to have a composition root some where near the entry point of the code. There are many good reasons for this that are not difficult to find on the web so I won't go into that here.
The composition root is where you map your interfaces (usually, but possibly objects) to their implmentations. You can pass in information that is available at this point to the constructor. So you can pass in a reference to an object whose lifetime is current at the time of execution of the composition root.
However, if the lifetime of the composition root does not overlap with the life time of the object you want to create you have to defer the execution of the constructor until the object needs to be created. This is why you need to have a factory. You can pass a factory method in to your mapping at this point and thus pass in the information needed to generate the object, but allow the creation to happen at the time it is required not when the composition root is executed.
You do not need a factory class to do this factory methods are fine, moreover the factory method can be inlined and so the code overhead is not much more than if we were creating the objects in the composition route.
If we have a project with 2 services where the first service is dependant on the first and we only want the lifetime of the second service to start when we create the first service we might have something like the following. (I am using ninject to give a code example, but I expect that other IOC containers work similarly in this respect.)
`
public class Service1:IService
{
private Func<IService>serviceFactoryMethod _Service2Factory;
public Service1(Func<IService>service2FactoryMethod)
{
_Service2Factory=service2FactoryMethod;
}
public void DoSomethingUsingService2()
{
var service2=_Service2Factory();
service2.DoSomething();
}
}
public class MainClass
{
public void CompositionRoot()
{
var kernel= new StandardKernel();
kernel.Bind.ToMethod(m=>
{
return new Service1(m.Kernel.Get<IService2>());
}
}
}
`
This example does not address how you would manage the lifetime of the App, players and games lifespans, but hopefully it gives sufficient clues as to how to remove lifetime issues related to dependancy injection.
Side note: that using Ninject you would be able to change the scope of Service2 in order to manage its lifetime to go beoynd the lifetime of Service1. For example, if you knew each instance of a game were to happen on its own thread (OK, this maybe somewhat unlikely), you might use InThreadScope for the game.
I believe I understand the basic concepts of DI / IoC containers having written a couple of applications using them and reading a lot of stack overflow answers as well as Mark Seeman's book. There are still some cases that I have trouble with, especially when it comes to integrating DI container to a large existing architecture where DI principle hasn't been really used (think big ball of mud).
I know the ideal scenario is to have a single composition root / object graph per operation but in a legacy system this might not be possible without major refactoring (only the new and some select refactored old parts of the code could have dependencies injected through constructor and the rest of the system using the container as a service locator to interact with the new parts). This effectively means that a stack trace deep within an operation might include several object graphs with calls being made back and forth between new subsystems (single object graph until exiting into an old segment) and traditional subsystems (service locator call at some point to code under DI container).
With the (potentially faulty, I might be overthinking this or be completely wrong in assuming this kind of hybrid architecture is a good idea) assumptions out of the way, here's the actual problem:
Let's say we have a thread pool executing scheduled jobs of various types defined in database (or any external place). Each separate type of scheduled job is implemented as a class inheriting a common base class. When the job is started, it gets fed the information about which targets it should write its log messages to and the configuration it should use. The configuration could probably be handled by just passing the values as method parameters to whatever class needs them but if the job implementation gets larger than say 10-20 classes, it doesn't seem very handy.
Logging is the larger problem. Subsystems the job calls probably also need to write things to the log and usually in examples this is done by just requesting instance of ILog in the constructor. But how does that work in this case when we don't know the details / implementation until runtime? Since:
Due to (non DI container controlled) legacy system segments in the call chain (-> there potentially being multiple separate object graphs), child container cannot be used to inject the custom logger for specific sub-scope
Manual property injection would basically require the complete call chain (including all legacy subsystems) to be updated
A simplified example to help better perceive the problem:
Class JobXImplementation : JobBase {
// through constructor injection
ILoggerFactory _loggerFactory;
JobXExtraLogic _jobXExtras;
public void Run(JobConfig configurationFromDatabase)
{
ILog log = _loggerFactory.Create(configurationFromDatabase.targets);
// if there were no legacy parts in the call chain, I would register log as instance to a child container and Resolve next part of the call chain and everyone requesting ILog would get the correct logging targets
// do stuff
_jobXExtras.DoStuff(configurationFromDatabase, log);
}
}
Class JobXExtraLogic {
public void DoStuff(JobConfig configurationFromDatabase, ILog log) {
// call to legacy sub-system
var old = new OldClass(log, configurationFromDatabase.SomeRandomSetting);
old.DoOldStuff();
}
}
Class OldClass {
public void DoOldStuff() {
// moar stuff
var old = new AnotherOldClass();
old.DoMoreOldStuff();
}
}
Class AnotherOldClass {
public void DoMoreOldStuff() {
// call to a new subsystem
var newSystemEntryPoint = DIContainerAsServiceLocator.Resolve<INewSubsystemEntryPoint>();
newSystemEntryPoint.DoNewStuff();
}
}
Class NewSubsystemEntryPoint : INewSubsystemEntryPoint {
public void DoNewStuff() {
// want to log something...
}
}
I'm sure you get the picture by this point.
Instantiating old classes through DI is a non-starter since many of them use (often multiple) constructors to inject values instead of dependencies and would have to be refactored one by one. The caller basically implicitly controls the lifetime of the object and this is assumed in the implementations (the way they handle internal object state).
What are my options? What other kinds of problems could you possibly see in a situation like this? Is trying to only use constructor injection in this kind of environment even feasible?
Great question. In general, I would say that an IoC container loses a lot of its effectiveness when only a portion of the code is DI-friendly.
Books like Working Effectively with Legacy Code and Dependency Injection in .NET both talk about ways to tease apart objects and classes to make DI viable in code bases like the one you described.
Getting the system under test would be my first priority. I'd pick a functional area to start with, one with few dependencies on other functional areas.
I don't see a problem with moving beyond constructor injection to setter injection where it makes sense, and it might offer you a stepping stone to constructor injection. Adding a property is usually less invasive than changing an object's constructor.
Please be gentle, I'm a newb to this IoC/MVC thing but I am trying. I understand the value of DI for testing purposes and how IoC resolves dependencies at run-time and have been through several examples that make sense for your standard CRUD operations...
I'm starting a new project and cannot come up with a clean way to accomplish user permissions. My website is mostly secured with any pages with functionality (except signup, FAQ, about us, etc) behind a login. I have a custom identity that has several extra properties which control access to data... So....
Using Ninject, I've bound a concrete type* to a method (Bind<MyIdentity>().ToMethod(c => MyIdentity.GetIdentity()); so that when I add MyIdentity to a constructor, it is injected based on the results of the method call.
That all works well. Is it appropriate to (from the GetIdentity() method) directly query the request cookies object (via FormsAuthentication)? In testing the controllers, I can pass in an identity, but the GetIdentity() method will be essentially untestable...
Also, in the GetIdentity() method, I will query the database. Should I manually create a concrete instance of a repository?
Or is there a better way all together?
I think you are reasonably on the right track, since you abstracted away database communication and ASP.NET dependencies from your unit tests. Don't worry that you can't test everything in your tests. There will always be lines of code in your application that are untestable. The GetIdentity is a good example. Somewhere in your application you need to communicate with framework specific API and this code can not be covered by your unit tests.
There might still be room for improvement though. While an untested GetIdentity isn't a problem, the fact that it is actually callable by the application. It just hangs there, waiting for someone to accidentally call it. So why not abstract the creation of identities. For instance, create an abstract factory that knows how to get the right identity for the current context. You can inject this factory, instead of injecting the identity itself. This allows you to have an implementation defined near the application's composition root and outside reach of the rest of the application. Besides that, the code communicates more clearly what is happening. Nobody has to ask "which identity do I actually get?", because it will be clear by the method on the factory they call.
Here's an example:
public interface IIdentityProvider
{
// Bit verbose, but veeeery clear,
// but pick another name if you like,
MyIdentity GetIdentityForCurrentUser();
}
In your composition root you can have an implementation of this:
private sealed class AspNetIdentityProvider : IIdentityProvider
{
public MyIdentity GetIdentityForCurrentUser()
{
// here the code of the MyIdentity.GetIdentity() method.
}
}
As a trick I sometimes have my test objects implement both the factory and product, just for convenience during unit tesing. For instance:
private sealed class FakeMyIdentity
: FakeMyIdentity, IIdentityProvider
{
public MyIdentity GetIdentityForCurrentUser()
{
// just returning itself.
return this;
}
}
This way you can just inject a FakeMyIdentity in a constructor that expects an IIdentityProvider. I found out that this doesn’t sacrifice readability of the tests (which is important).
Of course you want to have as little code as possible in the AspNetIdentityProvider, because you can't test it (automatically). Also make sure that your MyIdentity class doesn't have any dependency on any framework specific parts. If so you need to abstract that as well.
I hope this makes sense.
There are two things I'd kinda do differently here...
I'd use a custom IPrincipal object with all the properties required for your authentication needs. Then I'd use that in conjunction with custom cookie creation and the AuthenticateRequest event to avoid database calls on every request.
If my IPrincipal / Identity was required inside another class, I'd pass it as a method parameter rather than have it as a dependency on the class it's self.
When going down this route I use custom model binders so they are then parameters to my actions rather than magically appearing inside my action methods.
NOTE: This is just the way I've been doing things, so take with a grain of salt.
Sorry, this probably throws up more questions than answers. Feel free to ask more questions about my approach.
I understand the concept behind DI, but I'm just learning what different IoC containers can do. It seems that most people advocate using IoC containers to wire up stateless services, but what about using them for stateful objects like entities?
Whether it's right or wrong, I normally stuff my entities with behavior, even if that behavior requires an outside class. Example:
public class Order : IOrder
{
private string _ShipAddress;
private IShipQuoter _ShipQuoter;
public Order(IOrderData OrderData, IShipQuoter ShipQuoter)
{
// OrderData comes from a repository and has the data needed
// to construct order
_ShipAddress = OrderData.ShipAddress; // etc.
_ShipQuoter = ShipQuoter;
}
private decimal GetShippingRate()
{
return _ShipQuoter.GetRate(this);
}
}
As you can see, the dependencies are Constructor Injected. Now for a couple of questions.
Is it considered bad practice to have your entities depend on outside classes such as the ShipQuoter? Eliminating these dependencies seems to lead me towards an anemic domain, if I understand the definition correctly.
Is it bad practice to use an IoC container to resolve these dependencies and construct an entity when needed? Is it possible to do this?
Thanks for any insight.
The first question is the most difficult to answer. Is it bad practice to have Entities depend on outside classes? It's certainly not the most common thing to do.
If, for example, you inject a Repository into your Entities you effectively have an implementation of the Active Record pattern. Some people like this pattern for the convenience it provides, while others (like me) consider it a code smell or anti-pattern because it violates the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP).
You could argue that injecting other dependencies into Entities would pull you in the same direction (away from SRP). On the other hand you are certainly correct that if you don't do this, the pull is towards an Anemic Domain Model.
I struggled with all of this for a long time until I came across Greg Young's (abandonded) paper on DDDD where he explains why the stereotypical n-tier/n-layer architecture will always be CRUDy (and thus rather anemic).
Moving our focus to modeling Domain objects as Commands and Events instead of Nouns seems to enable us to build a proper object-oriented domain model.
The second question is easier to answer. You can always use an Abstract Factory to create instances at run-time. With Castle Windsor you can even use the Typed Factory Facility, relieving you of the burden of implementing the factories manually.
I know this is an old post but wanted to add. The domain entity should not persist itself even if you pass in an abstracted repository in ctor. The reason I am suggestion this is not merely that it violates SRP, it also contrary to DDD's aggregation. Let me explain, DDD is suited for complex apps with inherently deep graphs, therefore, we use aggregate or composite roots to persist changes to the underlying "children", so when we inject persistence into the individual children we violate the relationship children have to the composite or aggregate root that should be "in charge" of the life cycle or aggregation. Of course the composite root or aggregate does not persist it's own graph either. Another is with injecting dependencies of DDD objects is that an injected domain object effectively has no state until some other event takes place to hydrate its state. ANy consumer of the code will be forced to init or setup the domain object first before they can invoke business behavior which violates encapsulation.
As I understand IoC-container is helpful in creation of application-level objects like services and factories. But domain-level objects should be created manually.
Spring's manual tells us: "Typically one does not configure fine-grained domain objects in the container, because it is usually the responsibility of DAOs and business logic to create/load domain objects."
Well. But what if my domain "fine-grained" object depends on some application-level object.
For example I have an UserViewer(User user, UserConstants constants) class.
There user is domain object which cannot be injected, but UserViewer also needs UserConstants which is high-level object injected by IoC-container.
I want to inject UserConstants from the IoC-container, but I also need a transient runtime parameter User here.
What is wrong with the design?
Thanks in advance!
UPDATE
It seems I was not precise enough with my question. What I really need is an example how to do this:
create instance of class UserViewer(User user, UserService service), where user is passed as the parameter and service is injected from IoC.
If I inject UserViewer viewer then how do I pass user to it?
If I create UserViewer viewer manually then how do I pass service to it?
there's nothing wrong with this design. you use Factories for that, which have one leg in the domain, one leg in infrastructure.
You can either write them manually, or have the container do that for you, by things like TypedFactoryFacility in Windsor.
Also when your domain objects come from persistence layer you can plug your container there to inject the services they require (NHibernate can do that).
But what if my domain "fine-grained" object depends on some application-level object?
It is precisely this that is considered bad-practice. I would say the problems could be:
There are tons of these objects, so there can be performance and memory issues.
The POJO style is that they can be used in all environments (persisted in the database, processed in business algorithms and rules, read and set in view technologies, serialized and send over the network). Injecting application-level objects in them could cause the following problems:
In your architecture, you probably have the rule that some (most) application-level objects are usable in some layers, not in others. Because all layers have access to the pojos, the rule would be violated transitively.
When serialized and rebuild in another JVM, what would be the meaning of your application-level objects. They are useless, they must be changed for the local equivalents...
Typically, the pojos that constitute your domain are self-contained. They can have access to other pojos (and many enums), that's all.
In addition to the data, they have methods that implement the details of the business rules or algorithms (remember the OO idea of grouping data and code that work on it ;-) ):
This is especially good when they have inheritance, as this allow to customize a business rule for some pojo by providing a different implementation (differing case without if or switch: remember OO? ;-) ).
Any code that requires access to application-level objects (like accessing the database) is taken out, for example to a Service or Manager. But that code stays high level, thus readable and simple, because the pojos themselves take care of the low level details (and the special cases).
After the fact, you often find out that the pojo methods get reused a lot, and composed in different ways by the Services or Managers. That's a big win on reducing duplication, the methods names provide much needed "meaning", and provide an easier access to developers that are new to a module.
For your update:
create instance of class UserViewer(User user, UserService service), where user is passed as the parameter and service is injected from IoC.
If I inject UserViewer viewer then how do I pass user to it?
If I create UserViewer viewer manually then how do I pass service to it?
In that case, you need a factory method (possibly on a Factory or Locator of yours). It could look at follow, separating the two parts:
public UserViewer createUserViewer(User user) {
UserViewer viewer = instantiateBean(UserViewer.class);
viewer.setUser(user);
return viewer;
}
private <E> E instantiateBean(Class<E> clazz) {
// call the IoC container to create and inject a bean
}