Develop Reference

Why do we need #Lookup, whats wrong with scope=prototype?

I'm studying spring beans and came across #Lookup, it says:
If we happen to decide to have a prototype Spring bean, then we are
almost immediately faced with the problem of how will our singleton
Spring beans access these prototype Spring beans?
hmm, I don't get it, because when I studied scope=prototype it says:
4.4.2 The prototype scope
The non-singleton, prototype scope of bean deployment results in the creation of a new bean instance every time a
request for that specific bean is made
so it seems i misinterpreted the words:
a request for that specific bean is made
actually programming in spring framework every line of the code is inside of some bean (i.e. #controller, #Service, etc), isn't it?
And almost all of them are singletons, isn't it?
So if I need prototype I just make scope=prototype and almost everytime it's injected to another bean (i.e. #controller, #Service, etc) isn't it?
So please give a real world scenarios, 1) when one should use #Lookup and 2) when it's not needed
Ok for the 1) the scenario:
#Component
#Scope("prototype")
public class SchoolNotification {
// ... prototype-scoped state
}
#Component
public class StudentServices {
// ... member variables, etc.
#Lookup
public SchoolNotification getNotification() {
return null;
}
// ... getters and setters
}
Please, show me scenario for the 2) case, and explain please the difference
Thank u

The implicit Bean scope in Spring is Singleton.
That means for a JVM instance, only a single instance of a Bean exists in memory (theoretically).
When you #Autowire a Prototype-scoped Bean inside a Singleton-scoped Bean, that Prototype one becomes a sort-of-singleton. Just think about it; a Singleton gets created, its injectable fields get Autowired, and that is it, the instance lives forever along with all its fields (keep in mind those Prototype-scoped fields are "pure" instances, they're not proxied).
#Lookup
is a proxy-driven annotation. What that means is Spring will extend your class using JDK proxies or CGLIB proxies, and it will override/implement the #Lookup-annotated method, providing its own version which uses a BeanFactory#getBean each time it is invoked.
The documentation is clear on this point
An annotation that indicates 'lookup' methods, to be overridden by the
container to redirect them back to the BeanFactory for a getBean call.
Thus, that means a fresh Bean instance is returned every time.
Just for your knowledge, another approach for working with Prototype-scoped Beans inside "other"-scoped Beans is using ProxyFactoryBean. The only difference is that the proxy is created at configuration-time, and then made available for direct #Autowireing, thus not requiring the definition of a #Lookup method, which sometimes is not wanted (usually by folks that are obsessed with clean code, like me).

Dagger 2 and use of #Singleton

I have inherited a Java web service project that is using Dagger 2. Based on my so far limited understanding of Dagger I am confused as to why every single class that is injected has the singleton annotation on it in the dagger module class's. If I was creating this application without dagger they would not all be singletons, is this something specific to dagger or have the previous developers simply misused Dagger?

[...] every single class that is injected has the singleton annotation [...] is this something specific to dagger [...]?
Nope. #Singleton is the only scope included with Dagger by default, but you can also create custom scopes, use #Reusable which may create multiple objects but will reuse them if possible, or no scope at all.
or have the previous developers simply misused Dagger?
If possible you should just ask them. If every object is a Singleton this looks like they did not invest a lot of thought in the setup and just copy-pasted declarations, at least this would be my assumption.

From the section about Reusable in the user guide:
Sometimes you want to limit the number of times an #Inject-constructed
class is instantiated or a #Provides method is called, but you don’t
need to guarantee that the exact same instance is used during the
lifetime of any particular component or subcomponent. This can be
useful in environments such as Android, where allocations can be
expensive.
Two main differences:
#Singleton annotated class is guaranted to give always the same instance. It is needed if we keep global state in it. #Reusable do not give any guarantee.
If any class requests the instance of #Singleton annotated class, double checking is performed (which is slow). In case of #Reusable, it isn't.
I'd use #Reusable scope for classes that are expensive to build (for example I'm using for Retrofit instance - but to be honest I've never made performance tests if it is worth to use this annotation at all).
On the other hand, I'm using #Singleton annotated class for the cache.
Also, if you have class which keeps encapsulated global state like this:
class StateWrapper {
final State state;
#Inject
StateWrapper(State state) {
this.state = state;
}
}
I mean the state is de facto kept in the State class, do not annotate StateWrapper as #Singleton, always annotate the smallest part: in this case the State class.
(This hint is taken from the video)

Why is Spring's ApplicationContext.getBean with Interface considered bad? [duplicate]

I asked a general Spring question: Auto-cast Spring Beans and had multiple people respond that calling Spring's ApplicationContext.getBean() should be avoided as much as possible. Why is that?
How else should I gain access to the beans I configured Spring to create?
I'm using Spring in a non-web application and had planned on accessing a shared ApplicationContext object as described by LiorH.
Amendment
I accept the answer below, but here's an alternate take by Martin Fowler who discusses the merits of Dependency Injection vs. using a Service Locator (which is essentially the same as calling a wrapped ApplicationContext.getBean()).
In part, Fowler states, "With service locator the application class asks for it [the service] explicitly by a message to the locator. With injection there is no explicit request, the service appears in the application class - hence the inversion of control.
Inversion of control is a common feature of frameworks, but it's something that comes at a price. It tends to be hard to understand and leads to problems when you are trying to debug. So on the whole I prefer to avoid it [Inversion of Control] unless I need it. This isn't to say it's a bad thing, just that I think it needs to justify itself over the more straightforward alternative."

I mentioned this in a comment on the other question, but the whole idea of Inversion of Control is to have none of your classes know or care how they get the objects they depend on. This makes it easy to change what type of implementation of a given dependency you use at any time. It also makes the classes easy to test, as you can provide mock implementations of dependencies. Finally, it makes the classes simpler and more focused on their core responsibility.
Calling ApplicationContext.getBean() is not Inversion of Control! While it's still easy to change what implemenation is configured for the given bean name, the class now relies directly on Spring to provide that dependency and can't get it any other way. You can't just make your own mock implementation in a test class and pass that to it yourself. This basically defeats Spring's purpose as a dependency injection container.
Everywhere you want to say:
MyClass myClass = applicationContext.getBean("myClass");
you should instead, for example, declare a method:
public void setMyClass(MyClass myClass) {
this.myClass = myClass;
}
And then in your configuration:
<bean id="myClass" class="MyClass">...</bean>
<bean id="myOtherClass" class="MyOtherClass">
<property name="myClass" ref="myClass"/>
</bean>
Spring will then automatically inject myClass into myOtherClass.
Declare everything in this way, and at the root of it all have something like:
<bean id="myApplication" class="MyApplication">
<property name="myCentralClass" ref="myCentralClass"/>
<property name="myOtherCentralClass" ref="myOtherCentralClass"/>
</bean>
MyApplication is the most central class, and depends at least indirectly on every other service in your program. When bootstrapping, in your main method, you can call applicationContext.getBean("myApplication") but you should not need to call getBean() anywhere else!

Reasons to prefer Service Locator over Inversion of Control (IoC) are:
Service Locator is much, much easier for other people to following in your code. IoC is 'magic' but maintenance programmers must understand your convoluted Spring configurations and all the myriad of locations to figure out how you wired your objects.
IoC is terrible for debugging configuration problems. In certain classes of applications the application will not start when misconfigured and you may not get a chance to step through what is going on with a debugger.
IoC is primarily XML based (Annotations improve things but there is still a lot of XML out there). That means developers can't work on your program unless they know all the magic tags defined by Spring. It is not good enough to know Java anymore. This hinders less experience programmers (ie. it is actually poor design to use a more complicated solution when a simpler solution, such as Service Locator, will fulfill the same requirements). Plus, support for diagnosing XML problems is far weaker than support for Java problems.
Dependency injection is more suited to larger programs. Most of the time the additional complexity is not worth it.
Often Spring is used in case you "might want to change the implementation later". There are other ways of achieving this without the complexity of Spring IoC.
For web applications (Java EE WARs) the Spring context is effectively bound at compile time (unless you want operators to grub around the context in the exploded war). You can make Spring use property files, but with servlets property files will need to be at a pre-determined location, which means you can't deploy multiple servlets of the same time on the same box. You can use Spring with JNDI to change properties at servlet startup time, but if you are using JNDI for administrator-modifiable parameters the need for Spring itself lessens (since JNDI is effectively a Service Locator).
With Spring you can lose program Control if Spring is dispatching to your methods. This is convenient and works for many types of applications, but not all. You may need to control program flow when you need to create tasks (threads etc) during initialization or need modifiable resources that Spring didn't know about when the content was bound to your WAR.
Spring is very good for transaction management and has some advantages. It is just that IoC can be over-engineering in many situations and introduce unwarranted complexity for maintainers. Do not automatically use IoC without thinking of ways of not using it first.

It's true that including the class in application-context.xml avoids the need to use getBean. However, even that is actually unnecessary. If you are writing a standalone application and you DON'T want to include your driver class in application-context.xml, you can use the following code to have Spring autowire the driver's dependencies:
public class AutowireThisDriver {
private MySpringBean mySpringBean;
public static void main(String[] args) {
AutowireThisDriver atd = new AutowireThisDriver(); //get instance
ClassPathXmlApplicationContext ctx = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext(
"/WEB-INF/applicationContext.xml"); //get Spring context
//the magic: auto-wire the instance with all its dependencies:
ctx.getAutowireCapableBeanFactory().autowireBeanProperties(atd,
AutowireCapableBeanFactory.AUTOWIRE_BY_TYPE, true);
// code that uses mySpringBean ...
mySpringBean.doStuff() // no need to instantiate - thanks to Spring
}
public void setMySpringBean(MySpringBean bean) {
this.mySpringBean = bean;
}
}
I've needed to do this a couple of times when I have some sort of standalone class that needs to use some aspect of my app (eg for testing) but I don't want to include it in application-context because it is not actually part of the app. Note also that this avoids the need to look up the bean using a String name, which I've always thought was ugly.

One of the coolest benefits of using something like Spring is that you don't have to wire your objects together. Zeus's head splits open and your classes appear, fully formed with all of their dependencies created and wired-in, as needed. It's magical and fantastic.
The more you say ClassINeed classINeed = (ClassINeed)ApplicationContext.getBean("classINeed");, the less magic you're getting. Less code is almost always better. If your class really needed a ClassINeed bean, why didn't you just wire it in?
That said, something obviously needs to create the first object. There's nothing wrong with your main method acquiring a bean or two via getBean(), but you should avoid it because whenever you're using it, you're not really using all of the magic of Spring.

The motivation is to write code that doesn't depend explicitly on Spring. That way, if you choose to switch containers, you don't have to rewrite any code.
Think of the container as something is invisible to your code, magically providing for its needs, without being asked.
Dependency injection is a counterpoint to the "service locator" pattern. If you are going to lookup dependencies by name, you might as well get rid of the DI container and use something like JNDI.

Using #Autowired or ApplicationContext.getBean() is really the same thing. In both ways you get the bean that is configured in your context and in both ways your code depends on spring.
The only thing you should avoid is instantiating your ApplicationContext. Do this only once! In other words, a line like
ApplicationContext context = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("AppContext.xml");
should only be used once in your application.

One of Spring premises is avoid coupling. Define and use Interfaces, DI, AOP and avoid using ApplicationContext.getBean() :-)

One of the reasons is testability. Say you have this class:
interface HttpLoader {
String load(String url);
}
interface StringOutput {
void print(String txt);
}
#Component
class MyBean {
#Autowired
MyBean(HttpLoader loader, StringOutput out) {
out.print(loader.load("http://stackoverflow.com"));
}
}
How can you test this bean? E.g. like this:
class MyBeanTest {
public void creatingMyBean_writesStackoverflowPageToOutput() {
// setup
String stackOverflowHtml = "dummy";
StringBuilder result = new StringBuilder();
// execution
new MyBean(Collections.singletonMap("https://stackoverflow.com", stackOverflowHtml)::get, result::append);
// evaluation
assertEquals(result.toString(), stackOverflowHtml);
}
}
Easy, right?
While you still depend on Spring (due to the annotations) you can remove you dependency on spring without changing any code (only the annotation definitions) and the test developer does not need to know anything about how spring works (maybe he should anyway, but it allows to review and test the code separately from what spring does).
It is still possible to do the same when using the ApplicationContext. However then you need to mock ApplicationContext which is a huge interface. You either need a dummy implementation or you can use a mocking framework such as Mockito:
#Component
class MyBean {
#Autowired
MyBean(ApplicationContext context) {
HttpLoader loader = context.getBean(HttpLoader.class);
StringOutput out = context.getBean(StringOutput.class);
out.print(loader.load("http://stackoverflow.com"));
}
}
class MyBeanTest {
public void creatingMyBean_writesStackoverflowPageToOutput() {
// setup
String stackOverflowHtml = "dummy";
StringBuilder result = new StringBuilder();
ApplicationContext context = Mockito.mock(ApplicationContext.class);
Mockito.when(context.getBean(HttpLoader.class))
.thenReturn(Collections.singletonMap("https://stackoverflow.com", stackOverflowHtml)::get);
Mockito.when(context.getBean(StringOutput.class)).thenReturn(result::append);
// execution
new MyBean(context);
// evaluation
assertEquals(result.toString(), stackOverflowHtml);
}
}
This is quite a possibility, but I think most people would agree that the first option is more elegant and makes the test simpler.
The only option that is really a problem is this one:
#Component
class MyBean {
#Autowired
MyBean(StringOutput out) {
out.print(new HttpLoader().load("http://stackoverflow.com"));
}
}
Testing this requires huge efforts or your bean is going to attempt to connect to stackoverflow on each test. And as soon as you have a network failure (or the admins at stackoverflow block you due to excessive access rate) you will have randomly failing tests.
So as a conclusion I would not say that using the ApplicationContext directly is automatically wrong and should be avoided at all costs. However if there are better options (and there are in most cases), then use the better options.

The idea is that you rely on dependency injection (inversion of control, or IoC). That is, your components are configured with the components they need. These dependencies are injected (via the constructor or setters) - you don't get then yourself.
ApplicationContext.getBean() requires you to name a bean explicitly within your component. Instead, by using IoC, your configuration can determine what component will be used.
This allows you to rewire your application with different component implementations easily, or configure objects for testing in a straightforward fashion by providing mocked variants (e.g. a mocked DAO so you don't hit a database during testing)

Others have pointed to the general problem (and are valid answers), but I'll just offer one additional comment: it's not that you should NEVER do it, but rather that do it as little as possible.
Usually this means that it is done exactly once: during bootstrapping. And then it's just to access the "root" bean, through which other dependencies can be resolved. This can be reusable code, like base servlet (if developing web apps).

There is another time when using getBean makes sense. If you're reconfiguring a system that already exists, where the dependencies are not explicitly called out in spring context files. You can start the process by putting in calls to getBean, so that you don't have to wire it all up at once. This way you can slowly build up your spring configuration putting each piece in place over time and getting the bits lined up properly. The calls to getBean will eventually be replaced, but as you understand the structure of the code, or lack there of, you can start the process of wiring more and more beans and using fewer and fewer calls to getBean.

I've only found two situations where getBean() was required:
Others have mentioned using getBean() in main() to fetch the "main" bean for a standalone program.
Another use I have made of getBean() are in situations where an interactive user configuration determines the bean makeup for a particular situation. So that, for instance, part of the boot system loops through a database table using getBean() with a scope='prototype' bean definition and then setting additional properties. Presumably, there is a UI that adjusts the database table that would be friendlier than attempting to (re)write the application context XML.

however, there are still cases where you need the service locator pattern.
for example, i have a controller bean, this controller might have some default service beans, which can be dependency injected by configuration.
while there could also be many additional or new services this controller can invoke now or later, which then need the service locator to retrieve the service beans.

You should to use: ConfigurableApplicationContext instead of for ApplicationContext

Guice Injection into Business Layer of Java Web App

I have sucessfully used Guice to Inject Providers into the servlet portion of an existing java web application, however, I can't access the injectors through the business layer (non-servlet java classes) of the application.
I have read up on Injecting the Injector, but to me that seems more like a hack and in several places, including the Guice documentation, it says not to do that too much.
I guess my question is, Where do I bootstrap a java web app so that the non-servlet/filter classes have access to the injector created in the class I use to extend GuiceServletContextListener? Is there any way to make those classes injectable without injecting the injector?
Thank you and let me know if you need any clarification.
Edit:
I am attempting to do this with a simple logger, so far, in my
servlets, I call:
#Inject
private static org.slf4j.Logger log;
The injection is set up in MyLoggerModule as follows (which is in the
createInjector call with ServletModule) :
#Override
public void configure() {
bindListener(Matchers.any(), new SLF4JTypeListener()); // I
built my own SLF4JTypeListener...
}
This all works perfectly in the servlets, but the field injection does
not work when called by a class that is not a servlet or filter.

Guice doesn't intercept calls for new objects, so if your business layer isn't already using Guice to create the objects that need injection, it'll need modification to do so.
The injection only works when handled by Guice during injection. So starting from the base injector you've made, whatever is marked with #Inject which is needed for the instance you've requested will be provided by Guice as best it can, and in turn, during instanciation of those, further #Inject annotations will be filled in by providers and bindings until nothing new needs to be instanciated. From that point on however you are not going to get fields injected into servlets created outside Guice's injection, perhaps by calling new somewhere, which is likely what your Object Factory is doing.
You'll need to change your Object Factory to use providers instead of new. If you could edit these, it wouldn't be too hard to do since Guice can give you default providers for bindings.
So one way your business layer could be Guice aware is to have whatever is creating servlets first create an Injector and then request the servlets be created by the injector. If this means you'll have more than one injector, then yes, that will be a problem but only for the objects you want to be singletons. So you could make a factory pattern class for a singleton injector, or you could find where these classes (here typed bar) which are creating servlets themselves are created (in foo), and then start with the injector there (in foo) using one Guice injector to create those (bar type) classes and also modifying them (bar type) to request a provider for the servlets which they'll use instead of making calls for a new servlet.
Now that I think about this, it could be simple if it kind of only happens once or twice for 10-20 servlet types, or it could be complicated if there's some framework that defines totally flexible behavior for what gets newed up when and why.
Another option would be avoiding #Inject on fields at all times, as recommended. So now your servlets are taking in an org.slf4j.Logger as a construction parameter. The constructor is marked #Inject, and it assigns the parameter's value to the field. Then any place you're not using injection should break with an incorrect number of parameters at a new call. Fix these by figuring out how to either get the servlet provided here instead, or how to get a provider for the servlet into the class.

Not sure what you mean... if you inject objects in to your servlets/filters, those objects have their dependencies injected by Guice as well, and so on all the way down.
How are you creating the classes that you're trying to inject this logger in to? They must be created by Guice to be injected, which means no new.

Guice: Do I have to annotate every class of an object graph with #Inject?

I'd like to introduce Guice for the use of an existing mid-sized project.
For my demands I need a custom scope (session is too big, while request to small for my project).
Imagine that I request guice to provide me an instance of Class A which has direct and indirect dependencies to many other classes (composition).
My custom provider is able to provide the instance of classes which are used as constructor arguments of all involved classes.
Question:
Do I really have to put an #Inject (and my custom scope) annotation on the constructors of all involved classes or is there a way that guice only requires these annotations on the top-level class which I request and that all further dependencies are resolved by "asking" my custom scope for a provider of the dependent types?
If this is true this would increase the effort of introducing Guice because I have to adjust more than 1000 classes. Any help and experiences during the introduction of guice is appreciated.

First of all, it's possible to use Guice without putting an #Inject annotation anywhere. Guice supports Provider bindings, #Provides methods and constructor bindings, all of which allow you to bind types however you choose. However, for its normal operation it requires #Inject annotations to serve as metadata telling it what dependencies a class requires and where it can inject them.
There reason for this is that otherwise, it cannot deterministically tell what it should inject and where. For example, classes may have multiple constructors and Guice needs some way of choosing one to inject that doesn't rely on any guessing. You could say "well, my classes only have one constructor so it shouldn't need #Inject on that", but what happens when someone adds a new constructor to a class? Then Guice no longer has its basis for deciding and the application breaks. Additionally, this all assumes that you're only doing constructor injection. While constructor injection is certainly the best choice in general, Guice allows injection of methods (and fields) as well, and the problem of needing to specify the injection points of a class explicitly is stronger there since most classes will have many methods that are not used for injection and at most a few that are.
In addition to #Inject's importance in telling Guice, it also serves as documentation of how a class is intended to be used--that the class is part of an application's dependency injection wired infrastructure. It also helps to be consistent in applying #Inject annotations across your classes, even if it wouldn't currently be absolutely necessary on some that just use a single constructor. I'd also note that you can use JSR-330's #javax.inject.Inject annotation in Guice 3.0 if a standard Java annotation is preferable to a Guice-specific one to you.
I'm not too clear on what you mean by asking the scope for a provider. Scopes generally do not create objects themselves; they control when to ask the unscoped provider of a dependency for a new instance and how to control the scope of that instance. Providers are part of how they operate, of course, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean. If you have some custom way of providing instances of objects, Provider bindings and #Provides methods are the way to go for that and don't require #Inject annotations on the classes themselves.

NO YOU DONT
GUICE does not ask you to inject every single object. GUICE will try and create only injected objects. So you can #Inject objects that you want to be injected.
On the scope bit - Scope essentially controls how your objects gets created by GUICE. When you write your own custom scope you can have a datastructure that controls the way objects are created. When you scope a class with your custom annotation, GUICE will call your scope method before creation with a Provider for that class. You can then decide if you want to create a new object or use an existing object from a datastructure (such as hashmap or something). If you want to use an existing one you get that and return the object, else you do a provider.get() and return.
Notice this
public <T> Provider<T> scope(final Key<T> key, final Provider<T> unscoped) {
return new Provider<T>() {
public T get() {
Map<Key<?>, Object> scopedObjects = getScopedObjectMap(key);
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
T current = (T) scopedObjects.get(key);
if (current == null && !scopedObjects.containsKey(key)) {
current = unscoped.get();
scopedObjects.put(key, current);
}
// what you return here is going to be injected ....
// in this scope object you can have a datastructure that holds all references
// and choose to return that instead depending on your logic and external
// dependencies such as session variable etc...
return current;
}
};
}
Here's a tutorial ...
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/CustomScopes

At the most basic level, the #Inject annotation identifies the stuff guice will need to set for you. You can have guice inject into a field directly, into a method, or into a constructor. You must use the #Inject annotation every time you want guice to inject an object.
Here is a guice tutorial.