Develop Reference

Dynamic dependency injection for multiple implementations of the same interface with Spring MVC

I am working on a REST API where I have an interface that defines a list of methods which are implemented by 4 different classes, with the possibility of adding many more in the future.
When I receive an HTTP request from the client there is some information included in the URL which will determine which implementation needs to be used.
Within my controller, I would like to have the end-point method contain a switch statement that checks the URL path variable and then uses the appropriate implementation.
I know that I can define and inject the concrete implementations into the controller and then insert which one I would like to use in each particular case in the switch statement, but this doesn't seem very elegant or scalable for 2 reasons:
I now have to instantiate all of the services, even though I only need to use one.
The code seems like it could be much leaner since I am literally calling the same method that is defined in the interface with the same parameters and while in the example it is not really an issue, but in the case that the list of implementations grows ... so does the number of cases and redundant code.
Is there a better solution to solve this type of situation? I am using SpringBoot 2 and JDK 10, ideally, I'd like to implement the most modern solution.
My Current Approach
#RequestMapping(Requests.MY_BASE_API_URL)
public class MyController {
//== FIELDS ==
private final ConcreteServiceImpl1 concreteService1;
private final ConcreteServiceImpl2 concreteService2;
private final ConcreteServiceImpl3 concreteService3;
//== CONSTRUCTORS ==
#Autowired
public MyController(ConcreteServiceImpl1 concreteService1, ConcreteServiceImpl2 concreteService2,
ConcreteServiceImpl3 concreteService3){
this.concreteService1 = concreteService1;
this.concreteService2 = concreteService2;
this.concreteService3 = concreteService3;
}
//== REQUEST MAPPINGS ==
#GetMapping(Requests.SPECIFIC_REQUEST)
public ResponseEntity<?> handleSpecificRequest(#PathVariable String source,
#RequestParam String start,
#RequestParam String end){
source = source.toLowerCase();
if(MyConstants.SOURCES.contains(source)){
switch(source){
case("value1"):
concreteService1.doSomething(start, end);
break;
case("value2"):
concreteService2.doSomething(start, end);
break;
case("value3"):
concreteService3.doSomething(start, end);
break;
}
}else{
//An invalid source path variable was recieved
}
//Return something after additional processing
return null;
}
}

In Spring you can get all implementations of an interface (say T) by injecting a List<T> or a Map<String, T> field. In the second case the names of the beans will become the keys of the map. You could consider this if there are a lot of possible implementations or if they change often. Thanks to it you could add or remove an implementation without changing the controller.
Both injecting a List or a Map have some benefits and drawbacks in this case. If you inject a List you would probably need to add some method to map the name and the implementation. Something like :
interface MyInterface() {
(...)
String name()
}
This way you could transform it to a Map<String, MyInterface>, for example using Streams API. While this would be more explicit, it would polute your interface a bit (why should it be aware that there are multiple implementations?).
When using the Map you should probably name the beans explicitly or even introduce an annotation to follow the principle of least astonishment. If you are naming the beans by using the class name or the method name of the configuration class you could break the app by renaming those (and in effect changing the url), which is usually a safe operation to do.
A simplistic implementation in Spring Boot could look like this:
#SpringBootApplication
public class DynamicDependencyInjectionForMultipleImplementationsApplication {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(DynamicDependencyInjectionForMultipleImplementationsApplication.class, args);
}
interface MyInterface {
Object getStuff();
}
class Implementation1 implements MyInterface {
#Override public Object getStuff() {
return "foo";
}
}
class Implementation2 implements MyInterface {
#Override public Object getStuff() {
return "bar";
}
}
#Configuration
class Config {
#Bean("getFoo")
Implementation1 implementation1() {
return new Implementation1();
}
#Bean("getBar")
Implementation2 implementation2() {
return new Implementation2();
}
}
#RestController
class Controller {
private final Map<String, MyInterface> implementations;
Controller(Map<String, MyInterface> implementations) {
this.implementations = implementations;
}
#GetMapping("/run/{beanName}")
Object runSelectedImplementation(#PathVariable String beanName) {
return Optional.ofNullable(implementations.get(beanName))
.orElseThrow(UnknownImplementation::new)
.getStuff();
}
#ResponseStatus(BAD_REQUEST)
class UnknownImplementation extends RuntimeException {
}
}
}
It passes the following tests:
#RunWith(SpringRunner.class)
#SpringBootTest
#AutoConfigureMockMvc
public class DynamicDependencyInjectionForMultipleImplementationsApplicationTests {
#Autowired
private MockMvc mockMvc;
#Test
public void shouldCallImplementation1() throws Exception {
mockMvc.perform(get("/run/getFoo"))
.andExpect(status().isOk())
.andExpect(content().string(containsString("foo")));
}
#Test
public void shouldCallImplementation2() throws Exception {
mockMvc.perform(get("/run/getBar"))
.andExpect(status().isOk())
.andExpect(content().string(containsString("bar")));
}
#Test
public void shouldRejectUnknownImplementations() throws Exception {
mockMvc.perform(get("/run/getSomethingElse"))
.andExpect(status().isBadRequest());
}
}

Regarding two of your doubts :
1. Instantiating the service object should not be an issue as this is one time job and controller gonna need them to serve all type of request.
2. You can use the exact Path mapping to get rid of switch case. For e.g. :
#GetMapping("/specificRequest/value1")
#GetMapping("/specificRequest/value2")
#GetMapping("/specificRequest/value3")
All of the above mapping will be on separate method which would deal with specific source value and invoke respective service method.
Hope this will help to make code more cleaner and elegant.
There is one more option of separating this on service layer and having only one endpoint to serve all types of source but as you said there is different implementation for each source value then it says that source is nothing but a resource for your application and having separate URI/separate method makes the perfect sense here. Few advantages that I see here with this are :
Makes it easy to write the test cases.
Scaling the same without impacting any other source/service.
Your code dealing the each source as separate entity from other sources.
The above approach should be fine when you have limited source values. If you have no control over source value then we need further redesign here by making source value differentiate by one more value like sourceType etc. and then having separate controller for each group type of source.

How to configure providers with custom parameters?

My class depends on some services which needs to take few parameters and then make network call, currently I am passing those parameters and then creating those services via a factory injected into my class. I need to inject those services as a dependency instead, I know that I can create providers for them but in most of the examples I see that the providers are often bound to the fixed values like serveraddres etc. but I need to give then values during run time.
Below is my example code:
public SomeClass {
private final SomeFactory someFactory;
#Inject
SomeClass(SomeFactory factory) {
someFactory = factory;
}
public Foo getFoo(String fooId) {
FooService fooService = someFactory.getFooService(fooId);
return fooService.getFoo();
}
}
What I need to do is:
public SomeClass {
private final FooService fooService;
#Inject
SomeClass(FooService fooService) {
this.fooService = fooService;
}
public Foo getFoo(String fooId) {
return fooService.getFoo();
}
}
Update 1
Making the use case more clear:
#Provides
#RequestScoped
public SomeService provideSomeService(Dep1 dep1, String code) throws IOException {
return new SomeService.Builder()
.withApplicationName("Foo")
.setCode(code)
.build();
}
Here, code can be null by default and when needed I can give some value in it.
Can I somehow pass arguments to the provider before its created?

If you have a binding for your value (here, code is a String without a binding annotation), then your Update 1 is exactly what the code would look like.
In practice, there are a few differences:
Constants like int and String values are generally annotated with a binding annotation, either #Named or a custom annotation.
If you need to inject a value into an object graph after Guice initialization, but have a deep enough object graph that dependency injection is still a good idea, you can create a child injector. This way you can make a #Named("code") String accessible within one action or object, but not across your entire Guice application.
If your value for code is dynamic enough that it can't be provided through Guice as a key of its own, then you'll have to pass it in using a factory of some sort. For a Builder-based object, I'd say that your SomeFactory implementation is the best that I would come up with in your case.
If you don't need to use a Builder, and can let Guice create the object based on your fields or constructor parameters, you can code-generate a Factory.
Guice can generate a factory for you through FactoryModuleBuilder, in a feature known as "assisted injection".
Google's other tool, AutoFactory, will code-generate a factory implementation that works in both Guice and Dagger. (It's bundled as "Auto", which includes a model object generator called AutoValue that also generates annotation implementations.)
I put a small demonstration of a child injector and assisted injection in my other SO answer here.

The best approach here is to parameterize the module and pass the parameter through to a provider that you create at runtime:
public class MyModule extends AbstractModule {
private final String code;
public MyModule(String code) {
this.code = code;
}
#Override public void configure() {
Provider<Dep1> depProvider = getProvider(Dep1.class);
bind(SomeService.class)
.toProvider(() -> new SomeService.Builder()
.withApplicationName("Foo")
.withDep(depProvider.get())
.setCode(code)
.build())
.in(RequestScoped.class);
}
}

Guice: One "Provider<T>" for multiple implementations

I have an interface that has 20 or so annotated implementations. I can inject the correct one if I know which I need at compile time, but I now need to dynamically inject one based on runtime parameters.
As I understood the documentation, I would have to use 20 or so Provider<T> injections and then use the one I need, which seems rather excessive to me. Is there a way to have something like an inst(Provider<T>).get(MyAnnotation.class) to bind a specific implementation, and then have only that Provider injected into my class?

Inject a MapBinder.
In your module, load the bindings into the MapBinder, then make your runtime parameters injectable as well. This example is based on the one in the documentation:
public class SnacksModule extends AbstractModule {
protected void configure() {
MapBinder<String, Snack> mapbinder
= MapBinder.newMapBinder(binder(), String.class, Snack.class);
mapbinder.addBinding("twix").to(Twix.class);
mapbinder.addBinding("snickers").to(Snickers.class);
mapbinder.addBinding("skittles").to(Skittles.class);
}
}
Then, in your object, inject the Map and the parameter. For this example I will assume you've bound a java.util.Properties for your runtime parameters:
#Inject
public MyObject(Map<String, Provider<Snack>> snackProviderMap, Properties properties) {
String snackType = (String) properties.get("snackType");
Provider<Snack> = snackProviderMap.get(property);
// etc.
}
Note, with the same MapBinder you can inject either a simple Map<String, Snack> or a Map<String, Provider<Snack>>; Guice binds both.

If all you want is to get an instance programmatically, you can inject an Injector. It's rarely a good idea--injecting a Provider<T> is a much better idea where you can, especially for the sake of testing--but to get a binding reflectively it's the only way to go.
class YourClass {
final YourDep yourDep; // this is the dep to get at runtime
#Inject YourClass(Injector injector) {
YourAnnotation annotation = deriveYourAnnotation();
// getProvider would work here too.
yourDep = injector.getInstance(Key.get(YourDep.class, annotation));
}
}
If you're trying write a Provider that takes a parameter, the best way to express this is to write a small Factory.
class YourDepFactory {
#Inject #A Provider<YourDep> aProvider;
#Inject #B Provider<YourDep> bProvider;
// and so forth
Provider<YourDep> getProvider(YourParameter parameter) {
if (parameter.correspondsToA()) {
return aProvider;
} else if (parameter.correspondsToB()) {
return bProvider;
}
}
YourDep get(YourParameter parameter) {
return getProvider(parameter);
}
}

Guice inject based on annotation value

I would like to use goolge/guice inject a value based on a class i provide with the annotation.
AutoConfig annotation
#BindingAnnotation
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.FIELD })
public #interface AutoConfig {
// default null not possible
Class<? extends Provider<? extends ConfigLoader<?>>> provider() default XMLAutoConfigProvider.class;
}
This is my annotation which allows configuring the type of config, that should be used for the annotated fields.
Usecase:
#AutoConfig()
ConfigLoader<?> defaultConfig;
#AutoConfig(provider = JsonConfigProvider)
ConfigLoader<?> jsonConfig;
I want to have two configs, one default/xml one and a json one. They will probably never occur in the same class at the same time. But i don't know when the one or the other is used. I used the approach with a class because they are provided by some dependencies/libs and this annotation will be used for some (plugable) submodules.
MyGuiceModule
public class MyGuiceModule extends AbstractModule {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(new TypeLiteral<ConfigLoader<?>>() {})
.annotatedWith(AutoConfig.class)
.toProvider(autoConfig.provider());
}
}
This the critical part, i just cannot imagine how to implement it.
So basically i just want to use the provider class specified in the annotation.
Its not necessary to use the provider class here too. Because autoConfig.provider().newInstance() is basically all i need. (I need to use a setter on the new instance but thats all i want to do at this place)
To sum it up all i really want to do is push the annotation (or its values to the provider) either using the get(AutoConfig autoConfig) or in the constructor.
Currently i only use the constructor to inject the configFile value i want to set on the newly generated config instance.

If you know that #AutoConfig(provider = JsonConfigProvider) ConfigLoader<?> jsonConfig is going to return you exactly the results of jsonConfigProvider.get(), and JsonConfigProvider obviously has a public parameterless constructor for newInstance to work, why wouldn't you just ask for a JsonConfigProvider in the first place?
Fundamentally Guice is just a Map<Key, Provider> with fancy wrapping. The bad news is that this makes variable bindings like "bind Foo<T> for all T" impossible to express concisely, and that includes your "bind #Annotation(T) Foo for all T". The good news is that you still have two options.
Bind each provider separately
Though you can't inspect annotations during provision (or tell Guice to do so for you), Guice will compare annotations using their equals methods if you bind an annotation instance rather than an annotation class (the way you would with Names.named("some-name")). This means that you can bind a ConfigLoader<?> with each expected annotation in a Module. Of course, this also means you'll have to have a list of possible ConfigLoader Providers available at configuration time, but they have to be compile-time constants anyway if you're using them as annotation parameters.
This solution works with constructor injection as well, but for fields you'll need both #Inject and #AutoConfig(...), and AutoConfig will need to keep its #BindingAnnotation meta-annotation.
To do this, you're going to have to write an implementation of your annotation, the way Guice does with NamedImpl. Note that the implementations of equals and hashCode must match the ones Java provides in java.lang.Annotation. Then it's just a matter of (redundantly) binding like this:
for(Class<ConfigLoader<?>> clazz : loaders) {
bind(ConfigLoader.class).annotatedWith(new AutoConfigImpl(clazz))
.toProvider(clazz);
}
The definition of equals is up to you, which means you can (and should) bind #AutoConfig(ConfigEnum.JSON) and keep the Guice bindings in your modules rather than specifying your requested implementation all over your codebase.
Use custom injections
You can also use custom injections to search your injected types for custom annotations like #AutoConfig. At this point, you'd be using Guice as a platform to interpret #AutoConfig instead of #Inject, which means that constructor injection won't work but that you can control your injection based on the injected instance, field name, field annotation, annotation parameters, or any combination thereof. If you choose this style, you can drop #BindingAnnotation from AutoConfig.
Use the example in the wiki article linked above as your template, but at minimum you'll need to:
Use bindListener on Binder or AbstractModule to match types that need this custom injection.
In the TypeListener you bind, search injected types for #AutoConfig-annotated fields, and if they have any matching methods then bind those matching methods to a MembersInjector or InjectionListener. You'll probably want to tease the class literal out of the annotation instance here, and pass in the Field and Class as constructor arguments to the MembersInjector/InjectionListener.
In the MembersInjector or InjectionListener you write, instantiate the provider and set the field to the instance the provider provides.
This is a very powerful feature, which would futher allow you to--for instance--automatically provide the configuration based on which instance you're injecting into or based on the name of the field. However, use it carefully and document it heavily, because it may be counter-intuitive to your coworkers that Guice is providing for an annotation other than #Inject. Also bear in mind that this won't work for constructor injection, so refactoring from field injection to constructor injection will cause Guice to complain that it's missing a required binding to instantiate the class.

I had a similar problem. I wanted to use a custom annotation that receives a enum param to choose the implementation. After a lot of research, debug and testing, I came to the following solution:
//enum to define authentication types
public enum AuthType {
Ldap, Saml
}
//custom annotation to be used in injection
#Target({ ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.METHOD })
#BindingAnnotation
public #interface Auth {
AuthType value();
}
//defintion of authenticator
public interface Authenticator {
public void doSomehting();
}
//Authenticator implementations
public class LdapAuthenticator implements Authenticator {
#Override
public void doSomehting() {
// doing ldap stuff
}
}
public class SamlAuthenticator implements Authenticator {
#Override
public void doSomehting() {
// doing saml stuff
}
}
public class MyModule extends AbstractModule {
// annotate fields to bind to implementations
private #Auth(AuthType.Ldap) Authenticator ldap;
private #Auth(AuthType.Saml) Authenticator saml;
#Override
protected void configure() {
//bind the implementation to the annotation from field
bindAnnotated("ldap", LdapAuthenticator.class);
bindAnnotated("saml", SamlAuthenticator.class);
}
private void bindAnnotated(String fieldName, Class<? extends Authenticator> implementation) {
try {
//get the annotation from fields, then bind it to implementation
Annotation ann = MyModule.class.getDeclaredField(fieldName).getAnnotation(Auth.class);
bind(Authenticator.class).annotatedWith(ann).to(implementation);
} catch (NoSuchFieldException | SecurityException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
//usage: add #Auth(<AuthType>) to the dependency
public class ClientClass {
private Authenticator authenticator;
#Inject
public ClientClass(#Auth(AuthType.Ldap) Authenticator authenticator) {
this.authenticator = authenticator;
}
}
Check the documentation of Binder
I tested the Jeff Bowman solution, but it apparently works only binding to providers

As a BindingAnnotations#binding-annotations-with-attributes states equals() and hashCode() should be properly implemented. So given that there is MyAnnotation
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER})
public #interface MyAnnotation {
SomeEnum value() default SomeEnum.A;
}
which is used to specify SomeInterface implementation(SomeDefault and SomeOther), SomeModule class could look like
public class SomeModule extends AbstractModule {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(Key.get(SomeInterface.class, createAnnotationClass(A))).to(SomeDefault.class);
// more common binding expresion
bind(SomeInterface.class).annotatedWith(createAnnotationClass(B)).to(SomeDefault.class);
}
private Annotation createAnnotationClass(SomeEnum someEnum) {
return new MyAnnotation() {
#Override
public SomeEnum value() {
return someEnum;
}
#Override
public Class<? extends Annotation> annotationType() {
return MyAnnotation.class;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
MyAnnotationCl myAnnoCl = (MyAnnotationCl) o;
return A == myAnnoCl.getValue();
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
// from java annotation documentation
return (127 * "value".hashCode()) ^ value().hashCode();
}
};
}
}
Then annotation could be used as follows:
public class DoSomethingWithSomething {
private final SomeInterface someImplementation;
#Inject
public DoSomethingWithSomething(
#MyAnnotation SomeInterface someDefault
// #MyAnnotation(A) SomeInterface someDefault
// #MyAnnotation(B) SomeInterface someOther
) {
this.someImplementation = someDefault;
}
}

Code injection via custom annotation

Here's my use case:
I need to do some generic operation before and after each method of a given class, which is based on the parameter(s) of the method. For example:
void process(Processable object) {
LOGGER.log(object.getDesc());
object.process();
}
class BaseClass {
String method1(Object o){ //o may or may not be Processable(add process logic only in former case)
if(o intstanceof Prcessable){
LOGGER.log(object.getDesc());
object.process();
}
//method logic
}
}
My BaseClass has a lot of methods and I know for a fact that the same functionality will be added to several similar classes as well in future.
Is something like the following possible?
#MarkForProcessing
String method1(#Process Object o){
//method logic
}
PS: Can AspectJ/guice be used? Also want to know how to implement this from scratch for understanding.
Edit: Forgot to mention, what I have tried.(Not complete or working)
public #interface MarkForProcessing {
String getMetadata();
}
final public class Handler {
public boolean process(Object instance) throws Exception {
Class<?> clazz = instance.getClass();
for(Method m : clazz.getDeclaredMethods()) {
if(m.isAnnotationPresent(LocalSource.class)) {
LocalSource annotation = m.getAnnotation(MarkForProcessing.class);
Class<?> returnType = m.getReturnType();
Class<?>[] inputParamTypes = m.getParameterTypes();
Class<?> inputType = null;
// We are interested in just 1st param
if(inputParamTypes.length != 0) {
inputType = inputParamTypes[0];
}
// But all i have access to here is just the types, I need access to the method param.
}
return false;
}
return false;
}

Yes, it can be done. Yes, you can use AspectJ. No, Guice would only be tangentially related to this problem.
The traditional aspect approach creates a proxy which is basically a subclass of the class you've given it (e.g. a subclass of BaseClass) but that subclass is created at runtime. The subclass delegates to the wrapped class for all methods. However, when creating this new subclass you can specify some extra behavior to add before or after (or both) the call to the wrapped class. In other words, if you have:
public class Foo() {
public void doFoo() {...}
}
Then the dynamic proxy would be a subclass of Foo created at runtime that looks something like:
public class Foo$Proxy {
public void doFoo() {
//Custom pre-invocation code
super.doFoo();
//Custom post-invocation code
}
}
Actually creating a dynamic proxy is a magical process known as bytecode manipulation. If you want to to do that yourself you can use tools such as cglib or asm. Or you can use JDK dynamic proxies. The main downside to JDK proxies are that they can only wrap interfaces.
AOP tools like AspectJ provide an abstraction on top of the raw bytecode manipulation for doing the above (you can do a lot with bytecode manipulation, adding behavior before and after methods is all aspects allow). Typically they define 'Aspect's which are classes that have special methods called 'advice' along with a 'pointcut' which defines when to apply that advice. In other words you may have:
#Aspect
public class FooAspect {
#Around("#annotation(MarkForProcessing)")
public void doProcessing(final ProceedingJoinPoint joinPoint) throws Throwable
{
//Do some before processing
joinPoint.proceed(); //Invokes the underlying method
//Do some after processing
}
}
The aspect is FooAspect, the advice is doProcessing, and the pointcut is "#annotation(MarkForProcessing)" which matches all methods that are annotated with #MarkForProcessing. It's worth pointing out that the ProceedingJoinPoint will have a reference to the actual parameter values (unlike the java.lang.reflect.Method)
The last step is actually applying your aspect to an instance of your class. Typically this is either done with a container (e.g. Guice or Spring). Most containers have some way of knowing about a collection of aspects and when to apply them to classes constructed by that container. You can also do this programmatically. For example, with AspectJ you would do:
AspectJProxyFactory factory = new AspectJProxyFactory(baseClassInstance);
factory.addAspect(FooAspect.class);
BaseClass proxy = factory.getProxy();
Last, but not least, there are AOP implementations which use compile-time "weaving" which is a second compilation step run on the class files that applies the aspects. In other words, you don't have to do the above or use a container, the aspect will be injected into the class file itself.