I'd like to vary the injected implementations based on something that's not known until runtime. Specifically, I'd like my app to operate as different versions where the "version" is not determined until a request is executing. Also, the "version" could vary per request.
After reading the docs it seems that I could implement a providers in cases where I need to choose an implementation at runtime based on the "version". Additionally, I could roll my own on top of juice.
Is implementing a provider the best way to go in this scenario? I'd like to know if there is a best practice or if anyone else out there has tried to use Guice to tackle this problem.
Thanks for any help!
-Joe
I think that if the version can be known only at runtime, you must provide the versioned "services" manually with custom provider. Possibly something like this:
#Singleton
public abstract class VersionedProvider<T, V> {
private Map<V, T> objects;
T get(V version) {
if (!objects.containsKey(version)) {
objects.put(version, generateVersioned(version));
}
return objects.get(version);
}
// Here everything must be done manually or use some injected
// implementations
public abstract T generateVersioned(V version);
}
public class MyRuntimeServiceModule extends AbstractModule {
private final String runTimeOption;
public ServiceModule(String runTimeOption) {
this.runTimeOption = runTimeOption;
}
#Override protected void configure() {
Class<? extends Service> serviceType = option.equals("aServiceType") ?
AServiceImplementation.class : AnotherServiceImplementation.class;
bind(Service.class).to(serviceType);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
String option = args[0];
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new MyRuntimeServiceModule(option));
}
Related
I'm relatively new to Guice, and some things still give me a pretty hard time.
My particular question is, how do you handle nested injections in Guice.
Example:
Class A uses Class B via #Inject, and Class B uses Class C.
Explicitly:
My Module where I bind to Providers.
public class ModuleBinder extends AbstractModule {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(DatabaseControllerInterface.class)
.toProvider(DatabaseControllerProvider.class).asEagerSingleton();
bind(AnalyzerInterface.class)
.toProvider(AnalyzerProvider.class).asEagerSingleton();
bind(SystemAdministrationInterface.class)
.toProvider(SystemAdministrationProvider.class).asEagerSingleton();
bind(LogInServiceInterface.class)
.toProvider(LogInServiceProvider.class);
}
}
The DatabaseControllerProvider:
public class DatabaseControllerProvider implements Provider<DatabaseControllerInterface> {
#Override
public DatabaseControllerInterface get() {
return new DatabaseControllerImpl();
}
}
The LogInServiceProvider:
public class LogInServiceProvider implements Provider<LogInServiceInterface> {
#Override
public LogInServiceInterface get() {
return new LogInServiceImpl();
}
}
And finally, the LogInService uses:
public class LogInServiceImpl implements LogInServiceInterface{
#Inject
private DatabaseControllerProvider databaseControllerProvider;
private final DatabaseControllerInterface databaseController;
public LogInServiceImpl() {
this.databaseController = databaseControllerProvider.get();
}
#Override
public User register(final String mail, final String userName, final String password) {
databaseController.registerUser(userName, mail, password, UserRole.ADMIN);
}
}
The call is then:
public class Test() {
public static test() {
final Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new ModuleBinder());
logInService = injector.getInstance(LogInServiceInterface.class);
logInService.registerUser("test", "test", "test");
}
}
I know most of you guys will get sick with that code, but hey, I'm a beginner with Guice, so please be gentle with me.
I want to use Constructor injection, I already realized that field injection is considered "evil". Do you have any idea how to get that working by keeping the providers (I need them)?
Using the injections in the example does nothing on the "second" level, the DatabaseControllerImpl in LogInServiceImpl is null.
Did I configure something wrong? Did I misunderstand the usage of Provides and/or Modules?
I hope somebody can and wants to help me. If you need more informations, post a comment.
With best regards,
JosefRucksack
Your direct answer: You're calling new T(); in your Providers, which doesn't support field injection.
First, a real timesaver: Don't keep your explicit Providers. If you have bound a T, Guice allows you to inject a Provider or call Injector.getProvider for that T, even if you haven't explicitly created a Provider yourself. See the Built-In Bindings page on the wiki,
or the Injector docs (emphasis mine):
Contains several default bindings:
This Injector instance itself
A Provider<T> for each binding of type T
The Logger for the class being injected
The Stage in which the Injector was created
Instead, do it this way:
public class ModuleBinder extends AbstractModule {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(DatabaseControllerInterface.class)
.to(DatabaseControllerImpl.class).asEagerSingleton();
bind(AnalyzerInterface.class)
.to(AnalyzerImpl.class).asEagerSingleton();
bind(SystemAdministrationInterface.class)
.to(SystemAdministrationImpl.class).asEagerSingleton();
bind(LogInServiceInterface.class)
.to(LogInServiceImpl.class);
}
}
You then have the same choice you do now, to inject T or Provider<T> and call getInstance or getProvider as needed.
If your Providers are absolutely necessary, especially if they actually receive an instance from some other system or service locator, one other option is to add your #Inject fields into them as in the Provider bindings wiki page and pass them into your constructor, or to just inject a MembersInjector<T>:
public class LogInServiceProvider implements Provider<LogInServiceInterface> {
#Inject MembersInjector<LogInServiceImpl> logInServiceImplInjector;
#Override
public LogInServiceInterface get() {
LogInServiceImpl logInServiceImpl = YourExternalDep.getLogInService();
logInServiceImplInjector.injectMembers(logInServiceImpl);
return logInServiceImpl;
}
}
However, this explicit-Provider solution is not idiomatic Guice, and should only be used with external or legacy code. Guice's whole reason for existence is to automate away boilerplate and let your systems come together clearly and flexibly. Providers are an implementation detail; let Guice create them for you.
Am trying to learn how guice plays with Play 2.1 framework. I have a service to which I need access outside the service package. I have placed the below in Global file
protected Injector configure() {
injector = Guice.createInjector(new AbstractModule() {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(MyService.class).to(MyServiceImpl.class).in(Singleton.class);
}
});
return injector;
}
#Override
public <A> A getControllerInstance(Class<A> clazz) throws Exception {
return injector.getInstance(clazz);
}
Inside the controller class am able to get to my object by doing below and everything seems to be fine
#Inject
MyService serviceObj
But elsewhere outside the controller the same object appears to be null. For example I have a core module which takes care of talking to the service. The controller classes hands out the job to the core module. I need to be able to get hold of this MyService obj in the core module classes.
What am I missing here guys?
Thanks
Karthik
I had figured a way out to do this.
In my configure method I had to use this
protected Injector configure() {
injector = Guice.createInjector(new AbstractModule() {
#Override
protected void configure() {
requestStaticInjection(TheClassThatNeedsMyService.class);
}
});
return injector;
}
And in my TheClassThatNeedsMyService I had to just do
#Inject MyService serviceObj;
Just for reference this is how my Service class looks like
#ImplementedBy(MyServiceImpl.class)
public interface MyService{
...
}
#Singleton
public class MyServiceImpl implements MyService{
...
}
Now am able to get access to my service object whereever I want in my application. Hope it helps someone
Thanks
Karthik
As an alternative to static injection, see the play-guice sample here:
http://typesafe.com/activator/template/play-guice
Guice can be used in a conventional manner with Play.
I have service interface
public interface CompoundService<T extends Compound> {
T getById(final Long id);
//...
}
and abstract implementation
public abstract class CompoundServiceImpl<T extends Compound>
implements CompoundService<T> {
//...
private Class<T> compoundClass;
//...
}
Every implementation of Compound requires it's own service interface which extends CompoundService and it's own service class which extends CompoundServiceImpl.
I would now like to add basic security uisng annotations to my methods in CompoundService. As far as I understood I must add them in the interface not the actual implementation. Since a user can have different roles for different implementations of Compound, i must take this into account. Meaning in #PreAuthorize I would like to get the name of the Compound implementation, eg. compoundClass.getSimpleName(). So that I get something like:
public interface CompoundService<T extends Compound> {
#PreAuthorize("hasRole('read_' + #root.this.compoundClass.getSimpleName())")
T getById(final Long id);
//...
}
This is basically what is mentioned here:
https://jira.springsource.org/browse/SEC-1640
however there is no example and I did not really get the solution. So should i use this? or as above #root.this?
My second question is, since this is in an interface which will be implemented by a proxy (from spring) will the experession this.compoundClass actually evaluate properly?
And last but not least how can I actually test this?*
*
I'm not actually creating a finished application but something configurable, like a framework for s specific type of database search. Meaning most authorization and authentication stuff has to come from the implementer.
Unit Testing
see http://www.lancegleason.com/blog/2009/12/07/unit-testing-spring-security-with-annotations
Since that is an old tutorial you might need to change the referenced schema versions. But more importantly the SecurityContext.xml configuration shown there does not work with Spring Security 3. See Spring Security - multiple authentication-providers for a proper configuration.
I did not require the mentioned dependencies:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.aspectj</groupId>
<artifactId>aspectjweaver</artifactId>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.springframework.security</groupId>
<artifactId>spring-security-core-tiger</artifactId>
</dependency>
it worked without them (however did not create an abstract test class)
root.this
This is in fact correct approach
The problem is that you can't use getSimpleName() of a class parameter. For an in-depth discussion see http://forum.springsource.org/showthread.php?98570-Getting-Payload-Classname-in-Header-Enricher-via-SpEL
The workarounds shown there did not help me much. So I came up with this very simple solution:
Just add the string property String compoundClassSimpleName to CompoundServiceImpl and set it in the constructor (which is called by subclasses):
Public abstract class CompoundServiceImpl<T extends Compound>
implements CompoundService<T> {
private String compoundClassSimpleName;
//...
public ChemicalCompoundServiceImpl(Class<T> compoundClass) {
this.compoundClass = compoundClass;
this.compoundClassSimpleName = compoundClass.getSimpleName();
}
//...
public String getCompoundClassSimpleName(){
return compoundClassSimpleName;
}
}
and her a Service implementing above abstract service:
public class TestCompoundServiceImpl extends CompoundServiceImpl<TestCompound>
implements TestCompoundService {
//...
public TestCompoundServiceImpl() {
super(TestCompound.class);
}
//...
}
And final the #PreAuthorize annotation usage:
public interface CompoundService<T extends Compound> {
#PreAuthorize("hasRole('read_' + #root.this.getCompoundClassSimpleName())")
public T getById(final Long id);
}
For above example the expression will evaluate to a role named "read_TestCompound".
Done!
As often the solution is very simple but getting there is a PITA...
EDIT:
for completeness the test class:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(locations = {
"classpath:ApplicationContext.xml",
"classpath:SecurityContext.xml"
})
public class CompoundServiceSecurityTest {
#Autowired
#Qualifier("testCompoundService")
private TestCompoundService testCompoundService;
public CompoundServiceSecurityTest() {
}
#Before
public void setUp() {
SecurityContextHolder.getContext().setAuthentication(
new UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken("user_test", "pass1"));
}
#Test
public void testGetById() {
System.out.println("getById");
Long id = 1000L;
TestCompound expResult = new TestCompound(id, "Test Compound");
TestCompound result = testCompoundService.getById(id);
assertEquals(expResult, result);
}
}
I would like to have a static instance method with Guice for one of the components (non-managed bean should be able to access this class). I created something like this:
public class LookupService {
#Inject
private static Provider<Injector> injector = null;
private final ILookup<IWS> lookup;
#Inject
public LookupService(ILookup<IWS> lookup) {
this.lookup = lookup;
}
public static LookupService instance() {
return injector.get().getInstance(LookupService.class);
}
public <T extends IWS> T lookup(Class<T> localInterface) {
return lookup.lookup(localInterface);
}
}
What do you think about this design ? Any other ideas on this ? (accessing managed beans from non-managed objects)
Basically, the pattern you're looking for is called "requesting static injection" and there's a Binder method dedicated to it. Once you have that down, your code looks a lot like this example from the Guice docs.
public class MainModule extends AbstractModule {
#Override public void configure() {
requestStaticInjection(LookupService.class);
}
}
public class LookupService {
/** This will be set as soon as the injector is created. */
#Inject
static Provider<LookupService> provider = null;
private final ILookup<IWS> lookup;
#Inject
public LookupService(ILookup<IWS> lookup) {
this.lookup = lookup;
}
public static LookupService instance() {
return provider.get();
}
public <T extends IWS> T lookup(Class<T> localInterface) {
return lookup.lookup(localInterface);
}
}
A few notes:
While you can still set your field to be private, remember that this means you cannot set it in tests (or in future non-Guice usage) without Guice's private-field-access magic. When using injected fields, we often make them package-private and then put the tests in the same package.
Static injection is generally seen as something to endorse only when migrating to Guice, or when you use other code you can't change. When possible, try to avoid global state--even if this means making FooBean data-only and creating an injected FooBeanService.
Even though you can inject an Injector wherever you'd like, you might find it easier to test if you simply inject a Provider<LookupService> instead. Only inject an Injector if you don't know what type you're going to need until runtime--for example, if you implement LookupService.lookup(...) using an Injector by passing the class literal to the injector to get an instance.
In fact, it's hard to say from here, but ILookup seems to act a lot like the Service Locator pattern, which solves the exact type of problem that Guice solves with dependency injection! If that's the case, you might as well rewrite ILookup to use Guice: Just remove calls to LookupService.instance().lookup(Foo.class) and instead create a matching pair of #Inject static Provider<Foo> fooProvider and requestStaticInjection(FooUser.class).
Hope that helps!
I'm using Ninject 2.0 to handle DI in one of my apps and I've come across something that's confusing me. Having zero documentation doesn't help too much either to be honest.
Say I have a constructor with the signature -
ctor(IServiceFactory factory1, IServiceFactory factory2)
{
this.factory1 = factory1;
this.factory2 = factory2;
}
Although these two services implement the same interface, they are quite different implementations and are used at different times so I don't want to inject an IEnumerable<IServiceFactory>.
My question is, when I'm binding the instances, how do I tell Ninject what to inject for each?
Thanks in advance.
Update
For the sake of anyone wanting to see the code would end up after reading Remo's links,...Here it is in brief. (I never realised C# had parameter attributes!)
//abstract factory
public interface IServiceFactory
{
Service Create();
}
//concrete factories
public class Service1Factory : IServiceFactory
{
public IService Create()
{
return new Service1();
}
}
public class Service2Factory : IServiceFactory
{
public IService Create()
{
return new Service2();
}
}
//Binding Module (in composition root)
public class ServiceFactoryModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IServiceFactory>()
.To<Service1Factory>()
.Named("Service1");
Bind<IServiceFactory>()
.To<Service2Factory>()
.Named("Service2");
}
}
//consumer of bindings
public class Consumer(
[Named("Service1")] service1Factory,
[Named("Service2")] service2Factory)
{
}
First of all you have to ask yourself if using the same interface is correct if the implementations need to do a completely different thing. Normally, the interface is the contract between the consumer and the implementation. So if the consumer expects different things then you might consider to define different interfaces.
If you decide to stay with the same interface than you have to use conditional bindings. See the documentation about how this is done:
https://github.com/ninject/ninject/wiki/Contextual-Binding
https://github.com/ninject/ninject/wiki/Conventions-Based-Binding