Develop Reference

How to handle Spring beans required by library?

I am refactoring an application using Spring by moving some shared components (a webservice client) into a library. The components cannot work on their own so still need some beans from the application that uses the library. What is the best practice for this?
I have created a #Configuration class so the application only needs to #Import it to use the library, but the application also needs to supply a Jackson ObjectMapper and a Settings object containing how to contact the webservice. I autowire the ObjectMapper and Settings beans into various beans used in the library. The application uses the library by injecting the Client into its code and calling it.
This works, but I'm not sure it's the right style. In IntelliJ IDEA as I develop the library, it complains that the beans the library injects don't exist with a red underline, which is true, they don't exist. But normally when I see red all over files that cannot be resolved, that tells me maybe I'm not doing it the right way.
The library needs to be used with applications using Spring 3 and 5. What is the proper way for a library to ask for things like ObjectMapper when it's not appropriate to define its own (because the app will already have Jackson), and "proprietary" beans like the Settings object?

Your question is a bit broad but hopefully I can give you a hint to the right direction.
The components cannot work on their own so still need some beans from the application that uses the library. What is the best practice for this?
First: This components should use an interface instead of some concrete beans.
Second: If you have a reusable library then this typical needs some configuration, that can not been part of the library itself because it depends on application that use that library
Third: because of second (and first): your library should not been based on any form of auto wiring, instead your library should been based on explicit (or default) configuration.
And this solve the problem. Use interfaces and an explicit configuration of your library in your application. As well as add an good documentation of the needed configuration to your lib.

Using inspiration from #Kayaman and #Ralph, I decided it's not appropriate to expose Spring as a part of a library to be used directly from the application's context. I realize now it's also not appropriate because the library could define duplicate "private" beans it did not want to expose. I was overthinking it. If I wanted to use Spring, I found out I could do this:
public class Factory {
public static Client createClient(ObjectMapper mapper, Settings settings) {
DefaultListableBeanFactory beanFactory = new DefaultListableBeanFactory();
beanFactory.registerSingleton("mapper", mapper);
beanFactory.registerSingleton("settings", settings);
AnnotationConfigApplicationContext ctx = new AnnotationConfigApplicationContext(beanFactory);
ctx.registerBean(ClientConfiguration.class);
ctx.refresh();
return ctx.getBean(Client.class);
}
}
Essentially, it's OK to use Spring as an implementation detail. Since the configuration I made exposed only one bean, it makes sense as a factory method. In the application I would create a method like this:
#Bean public Client makeClient(ObjectMapper mapper, Settings settings) {
return Factory.createClient(mapper, settings);
}
Of course the Bean method would have ObjectMapper and Settings injected in from the application's context, or could be inline constructors for ObjectMapper/Settings.
Instead, what I decided was since the client had few enough beans and none were lazy, I just removed Spring annotations entirely and just built the object graph by hand in almost as much code as the spring context took. Now the library has the benefit of not requiring Spring at all at runtime, in a supposed non-Spring application.

Spring - dependency injection - testing with different implementation

One of the main advantage of using spring dependency injection is for testing the functionality using same interface with different implementation without making any changes in the code, that is through injecting these different implementations(dependencies) in configuration file.
Lets take an example where we have developed our application with java configuration/annotation based (No .xml files at all).
We have done a code freeze and have deployed the code in server.
Now for a QA team to perform testing they need to inject different implementations for the interface by making changes in configuration file without touching code.
If its a .xml file, devOps team can inject the different implementation by injecting that bean name and can restart the server.
But since we have used the annotations based/java based configuration, How can we achieve this ?
Thanks in advance.

One of the main advantage of using spring dependency injection is for
testing the functionality using same interface with different
implementation
One of main advantages of Spring is indeed the dependency injection facility.
But you will also find very often cases where you have beans with a single implementation :
beans that rely on an interface but there is only one implementation for it.
bean that don't rely on any interface but are straight classes that you want to turn into injectable beans.
We have done a code freeze and have deployed the code in server. Now
for a QA team to perform testing they need to inject different
implementations for the interface by making changes in configuration
file without touching code.
Spring and more generally dependency injection pattern/frameworks are not designed to perform hot swapping or implementation modification of a deployed component without repackaging the component.
At startup, Spring creates its context and loads all required beans for the application in its container.
If you want to change configurations of some beans, the most clean and side effect less way is destroying the spring context/container, repackage the application with the needed changes and restart it.
If its a .xml file, QA team can inject the different implementation by
injecting that bean name and can restart the server.
Ideally, the QA team should test the implementation that you deploy in QA env and that will be used by final users to stay the closest of the real functioning of the application.
Now, if because of some specific constraints, some components to test by the QA should be mocked/stubbed in a some way, just create a different build for that.
Spring Boot Profile and Maven Profile features can help for.

How to use in memory database with injected test with play java

The play documentation about functional tests in java shows two modes
using fakeApplication to specify a custom configuration (in memory database in the example)
using dependency injection to configure the application
I would like to use dependency injection but I have to set custom configuration on application startup like the use of in memory database.
I cannot achieve to do that. I guess this has to be done in the guice builder but I don't know how.

I am assuming you are using Guice for DI.
The discussion on issue 4809 on the framework's github repo should help on answering your question.
I was able to make it work using one of the solutions on the issue:
new GuiceApplicationBuilder()
.configure((Map) Helpers.inMemoryDatabase())
.in(Mode.TEST)
.build();

Spring framework best practices: deploying a non-bean compliant component

I want to build an MVC app using Spring (first timer here).
As such I want to embed Jetty as the servlet engine. Jetty however doesn't stricly follow the java beans pattern, so I can't launch some classes from Spring (they use overloaded setters or non setter init methods like addXYZ).
What is the accepted/recommended practice for structuring this project? Obviously all my code fits nicely in the MVC model, but for Jetty:
Do I encapsulate all of Jetty (or any
other non-bean friendly component) in
my own Spring-friendly bean?
Do I try to instantiate as much of it as
possible in spring and just extend
classes that aren't bean con-formant
to make them act like proper beans?
Is there
another option?

Generally speaking, I'm for the 2nd point - i.e. try to use spring utilities like factory-method, init-method, <constructor-arg> and things like that to overcome the fact that something is not entirely spring-friendly. It is rarely the case that it's impossible to configure beans with spring. And for the cases when it is impossible, create wrappers
You can also instantiate the 3rd party beans programatically:
via a FactoryBean
via JavaConfig

Using dependency injection in a library

I'm writing a java library that will be used by an existing application. I'm using dependency injection so testing is easier, and I'm familiar with Spring so I was planning to use it to manage the dependency injection while testing. The applications that will eventually use the library are not Spring-based, however, nor does it use any IoC/DI container of any sort currently. My question is, what's the best approach for injecting dependencies if Spring or Guice are not used? Should I consider something like a factory method to instantiate and wire the objects? The dependencies are all inside the library, so it doesn't seem appropriate to have the application instantiate each dependency to create the main object.

what's the best approach for injecting dependencies if Spring or Guice are not used?
If your library was written in a DI-friendly idiom. It should be fairly easy to use as a straitforward java API. Think of your past experience with spring. There are several libraries out there that fit perfectly with the spring model but were written before spring time. I don't see nothing bad with a new followed by a couple of setXX followed by a call to the real work method. Just be extra careful, since, among other things, your client can forget to call thouse init methods that spring reliably calls.
Should I consider something like a factory method to instantiate and wire the objects? The dependencies are all inside the library, so it doesn't seem appropriate to have the application instantiate each dependency to create the main object.
Let the client application decide that. You are providing a library. Let the API client wire its own objects. Provide an example. Later, that same example can be used to make the factory method on the client's domain. Maybe the client application has it's own way to configure itself, and it would be desirable if the API your library provides to be flexible enough to take advantage of that.
Or maybe you can include guice. The licence is Apache. Just like a whole piece of Java itself.