Related
I have a few questions about Spring paradigm in Java:
1) Suppose I have an application where I write everything to interfaces, and then at the very last moment, somewhere in my actual main() or maybe in a config file, I define my specific classes to be used. Have I achieved the same objective as Spring? In that case, why do I need Spring's DI? Writing to interfaces, and leaving specifics till the very last moment, is standard practice that programmers have been using for decades.
2) If the objection is to new'ing objects at some (final) point in time, this has to be done at some point in my interface-driven app, but what's wrong with that? How does having a "new" statement make a class unusable or untestable - or is it just readability/transparency?
3) People say that declaratively using objects "gets rid of dependencies." But we still have a dependency: we have to import a new class, even if we don't "new" it, before we can compile the code?
Some people, like me, prefer to configure the wiring of dependencies and interface implementations using Spring XML rather than hardcode them. All the wirings are in one place (assuming you are not using annotations) and I can also argue that modifying the configuration of the XML file is easier than modifying code. You can also tweak the Spring file between runs of your application if there is something that needs to change.
Spring is a good framework that has been around for a while. I find it's really really good at Dependency Injection (DI). While there is nothing "wrong" with your approach in #1, I think using Spring will give you a more robust implementation. Why reinvent the wheel?
In Spring I have a controller, a service interface which provides the methods this controller can access. The controller invokes various implementation methods of the service.
To acheive same 'seperation of design' in scala is this the correct implementation :
Define the scala controller, define a scala trait which acts as the service interface. Define a new class which extends this trait and provides the implementations of the service. The controller will then instatiate this new class and call the various methods implementations of the service methods.
Is this good design or how Spring MVC is used in practice ?
As has been commented by others, 'good design' is a flexible concept depending on other factors. I shall not add to that discussion but offer an overview of our approach instead.
We started with a conventional Java & Spring webapp, although we chose Jersey instead of Spring MVC. Later, we recoded in Scala, which went well. We deliberately kept to a Java-like style Scala - this may be seen as uncool but it works well and is easy to train up new colleagues.
Then we decided to drop Spring, along with its XML and the whole shebang of transitive dependencies. This was easy because we already had a set of services and controllers that were all classes with constructor-injected dependencies (all TDD of course). All we had to do was write a new Bootstrap class that instantiates the services and controllers, supplying the necessary concrete classes in each constructor parameter list. Conveniently, the Bootstrap class is essentially a transliteration of the original Spring wiring into (quite simple) Scala. The Bootstrap class is started from web.xml when the app starts. (This approach will be familiar to anyone who has used Pico Container.)
In our case, we didn't need to use traits much in our service layers; clean design of concrete classes driven by TDD was sufficient. But our approach would also work well with pluggable abstractions for the services, if that were necessary.
Now we have a webapp with no XML except web.xml, purely in Scala so it's easy to navigate and modify, and with far fewer external dependencies. This worked very well for us.
"Good design" is quite subjective and the meaning of "good design" changes over time for each programmer. There are a few things that most people consider best practices, yet even best practices have conflicts. My personal opinion is that a programmer should continue to learn these best practices and more importantly keep molding his code until it reaches the best shape for that situation. That point however, where it's the 'best' shape keeps changing as the programmer keeps learning.
I can not tell you what "good design" design is in your case as I don't know the situation. On top of that, I am not you, so my "good design" is not the best for you. I would suggest you find it yourself with the help of some questions:
Who are you programming for?
How long will your code live?
Who will maintain your code?
Do you want to create automatic tests and are you willing to change your design for that?
Do you need more than one implementation of a single principle?
What style feels right for you at this point in time?
How often will the code change?
Do you want to take the future into account, or only create what is needed right now?
What libraries do you like to use?
How much time do you want to spend?
Recently in our team we started discussing using spring annotations in code to define spring dependencies. Currently we are using context.xml to define our dependencies. Would you give me some clues for either approach, and when one is better to be used?
Edit: I know this seems a duplicate question to a more-general one, but I am interested in the impacts of annotations vs configuration for dependency injection only, which I believe would have different answers and attitude than the general question.
After reading some related posts here and having further discussion in the team we come to the following conclusions. I hope the would be useful to others here.
About XML configuration (which we are using up to now), we decided to keep it for dependencies defined by libraries (regardless if being developed by us, or by third parties).
Libraries, by definition, provide a particular functionality and can be used in various scenarios, not necessarily involving DI. Therefore, using annotations in the library projects we develop ourselves, would create a dependency of the DI framework (Spring in our case) to the library, making the library unusable in non-DI context. Having extra dependencies is not considered a good practice among our team (an in general IMHO).
When we are assembling an application, the application context would define the necessary dependencies. This will simplify dependency tracking as the application becomes the central unit of combining all the referenced components, and usually this is indeed where all the wiring up should happen.
XML is also good for us when providing mock implementations for many components, without recompiling the application modules that will use them. This gives us flexibility when testing running in local or production environment.
In regards to annotations, we decided that we can benefit using them when the injected components will not vary -- for instance only a certain implementation for a component will be used troughout the application.
The annotations will be very useful for small components/applications that will not change or support different implementations of a dependency at once, and that are unlikely to be composed in a different way (for instance using different dependencies for different builds). Simple micro-services would fit in this category.
Small enough components, made up with annotations, can be used right out of the box in different projects, without having the respective applications to cover them in their XML configuration. This would simplify the application dependency wiring for the application and reduce repetitive setups.
However, we agreed that such components should have the dependencies well described in our technical documentation, so that when assembling the entire application, one can have an idea of these dependencies without scrolling through the code, or even loading the module in the IDE.
A negative side effect of annotation-configured components, is that different components could bring clashing transitive dependencies, and again it is up to the final application to resolve the conflicts. When these dependencies are not defined in XML, the conflict resolution approaches become quite limited and straying far from the best practices, if they are at all possible.
So, when going with annotations, the component has to be mature enough about what dependencies it is going use.
In general if our dependencies may vary for different scenarios, or a module can be used with different components, we decided to stick to XML. Clearly, there MUST be a right balance between both approaches, and a clear idea for the usages.
An important update regarding the mixed approach. Recently we had a case with a test framework we created for our QA team, which required dependencies from another project. The framework was designed to use the annotation approach and Spring configuration classes, while the referenced project had some xml contexts that we needed to reference. Unfortunately, the test classes (where we used org.testng with spring support) could only work with either the xml or java configuration classes, not mixing both.
This situation illustrates a case where mixing the approaches would clash and clearly, one must be discarded. In our case, we migrated the test framework to use spring xml contexts, but other uses could imply the other way around.
Some advantages of using XML configuration:
The XML configuration is at one place, instead of being scattered all over the source code in case of annotations. Some people may argue that IDEs like STS allow you to look at all annotations based configuration in one place, but I never like having dependencies on IDEs.
Its takes a little more efforts to write XML config, but it saves a lot of time later when you search for dependencies and try to understand the project.
XML keeps configuration well organized and simple. Hence is easier to understand, it helps new relatively inexperienced team members get up to speed quickly.
Allows you to change the config without a need to recompile and redeploy code. So it is better, when it comes to production support.
So in short XML configuration takes a little more efforts, but it saves you a lot of time & headache later in big projects.
2.5 years later:
We use annotations mostly these days, but most crucial change is that we create many small projects (instead of a one big project). Hence understanding dependencies is not a problem anymore; as each project has it's unique purpose and relatively small codebase.
from my experience, I would prefer(or rather am forced by limitations) to use a combination of XML and annotation based DI . If I need to inject a Map of elements inside a bean , I would have to define a util:map and autowire it . Also, I need to use XML DI to inject datasource into the sessionFactory if I have multiple datasources and so on . So a combination of both would be requited .
I prefer the usage of component-scan to autodetect the services and Dao . This cuts down a lot of Configuration (We cut down the configuration files by around 50% switching to component-scan). Annotation based DI supports both byName(#Resource) and byType(#Autowired).
In short my advice to be to go for a fixture of both . I feel that more annotation support will definitely be on cards in future Spring releases.
Take a look at this answer here: Xml configuration versus Annotation based configuration
A short quote directly from there:
Annotations have their use, but they are not the one silver bullet to
kill XML configuration. I recommend mixing the two!
For instance, if using Spring, it is entirely intuitive to use XML for
the dependency injection portion of your application. This gets the
code's dependencies away from the code which will be using it, by
contrast, using some sort of annotation in the code that needs the
dependencies makes the code aware of this automatic configuration.
However, instead of using XML for transactional management, marking a
method as transactional with an annotation makes perfect sense, since
this is information a programmer would probably wish to know.
EDIT: Also, take a look at the answers here: Java Dependency injection: XML or annotations They most probably target the area of your interest much better.
From my own experience annotations better than xml configuration. I think in any case you can override xmls and use annotations. Also Spring 4 give us a huge support for annotations, we can override security from xml to annotations e.t.c, so we will have not 100 lines xml but 10 lines Java Code.
Are annotations better than XML for configuring Spring?
The introduction of annotation-based configurations raised the
question of whether this approach is 'better' than XML. The short
answer is it depends. The long answer is that each approach has its
pros and cons, and usually it is up to the developer to decide which
strategy suits them better. Due to the way they are defined,
annotations provide a lot of context in their declaration, leading to
shorter and more concise configuration. However, XML excels at wiring
up components without
touching their source code or recompiling them. Some developers prefer
having the wiring close to the source while others argue that
annotated classes are no longer POJOs and, furthermore, that the
configuration becomes decentralized and harder to control.
No matter the choice, Spring can accommodate both styles and even mix
them together. It’s worth pointing out that through its JavaConfig
option, Spring allows annotations to be used in a non- invasive way,
without touching the target components source code and that in terms
of tooling, all configuration styles are supported by the Spring Tool
Suite.
my personal option is that xml is better since you have all at one place and you do not need to deep into your packages to search the class.
We can not tell which method is good, it depends on your project. We can nither avoid xml nor annotation. One advantage of using xml is that we can understand the project structure just seeing the xml context files, but annotation reduces lots of meta configuration. So I prefer 30% xml and 70% annotation.
By using XML, you prevent code from being polluted with framework-specific annotations and thus creating an undesired coupling. Keep the framework at the application boundary so you can always replace it should the need arise.
Frameworks come and go, but many applications live for decades. Fortunately, Spring is a non-invasive framework and doesn't bend your architecture. Keeping the configuration in XML will make it even more detached from your application.
Remark: in order to benefit from all this, your application should be well-designed in the first place.
Annotations becoming popular. Spring-3 supports them. CDI depends on them heavily (I can not use CDI with out of annotations, right?)
My question is why?
I heard several issues:
"It helps get rid of XML". But what is bad about xml? Dependencies are declarative by nature, and XML is very good for declarations (and very bad for imperative programming).
With good IDE (like idea) it is very easy to edit and validate xml, is not it?
"In many cases there is only one implementation for each interface". That is not true!
Almost all interfaces in my system has mock implementation for tests.
Any other issues?
And now my pluses for XML:
You can inject anything anywhere (not only code that has annotations)
What should I do if I have several implementations of one interface? Use qualifiers? But it forces my class to know what kind of injection it needs.
It is not good for design.
XML based DI makes my code clear: each class has no idea about injection, so I can configure it and unit-test it in any way.
What do you think?
I can only speak from experience with Guice, but here's my take. The short of it is that annotation-based configuration greatly reduces the amount you have to write to wire an application together and makes it easier to change what depends on what... often without even having to touch the configuration files themselves. It does this by making the most common cases absolutely trivial at the expense of making certain relatively rare cases slightly more difficult to handle.
I think it's a problem to be too dogmatic about having classes have "no idea about injection". There should be no reference to the injection container in the code of a class. I absolutely agree with that. However, we must be clear on one point: annotations are not code. By themselves, they change nothing about how a class behaves... you can still create an instance of a class with annotations as if they were not there at all. So you can stop using a DI container completely and leave the annotations there and there will be no problem whatsoever.
When you choose not to provide metadata hints about injection within a class (i.e. annotations), you are throwing away a valuable source of information on what dependencies that class requires. You are forced to either repeat that information elsewhere (in XML, say) or to rely on unreliable magic like autowiring which can lead to unexpected issues.
To address some of your specific questions:
It helps get rid of XML
Many things are bad about XML configuration.
It's terribly verbose.
It isn't type-safe without special tools.
It mandates the use of string identifiers. Again, not safe without special tool support.
Doesn't take any advantage of the features of the language, requiring all kinds of ugly constructs to do what could be done with a simple method in code.
That said, I know a lot of people have been using XML for long enough that they are convinced that it is just fine and I don't really expect to change their minds.
In many cases there is only one implementation for each interface
There is often only one implementation of each interface for a single configuration of an application (e.g. production). The point is that when starting up your application, you typically only need to bind an interface to a single implementation. It may then be used in many other components. With XML configuration, you have to tell every component that uses that interface to use this one particular binding of that interface (or "bean" if you like). With annotation-based configuration, you just declare the binding once and everything else is taken care of automatically. This is very significant, and dramatically reduces the amount of configuration you have to write. It also means that when you add a new dependency to a component, you often don't have to change anything about your configuration at all!
That you have mock implementations of some interface is irrelevant. In unit tests you typically just create the mock and pass it in yourself... it's unrelated to configuration. If you set up a full system for integration tests with certain interfaces using mocks instead... that doesn't change anything. For the integration test run of the system, you're still only using 1 implementation and you only have to configure that once.
XML: You can inject anything anywhere
You can do this easily in Guice and I imagine you can in CDI too. So it's not like you're absolutely prevented from doing this by using an annotation-based configuration system. That said, I'd venture to say that the majority of injected classes in the majority of applications are classes that you can add an #Inject to yourself if it isn't already there. The existence of a lightweight standard Java library for annotations (JSR-330) makes it even easier for more libraries and frameworks to provide components with an #Inject annotated constructor in the future, too.
More than one implementation of an interface
Qualifiers are one solution to this, and in most cases should be just fine. However, in some cases you do want to do something where using a qualifier on a parameter in a particular injected class would not work... often because you want to have multiple instances of that class, each using a different interface implementation or instance. Guice solves this with something called PrivateModules. I don't know what CDI offers in this regard. But again, this is a case that is in the minority and it's not worth making the rest of your configuration suffer for it as long as you can handle it.
I have the following principle: configuration-related beans are defined with XML. Everything else - with annotations.
Why? Because you don't want to change configuration in classes. On the other hand, it's much simpler to write #Service and #Inject, in the class that you want to enable.
This does not interfere with testing in any way - annotations are only metadata that is parsed by the container. If you like, you can set different dependencies.
As for CDI - it has an extension for XML configuration, but you are right it uses mainly annotations. That's something I don't particularly like in it though.
In my opinion, this is more a matter of taste.
1) In our project (using Spring 3), we want the XML-configuration files to be just that: configuration. If it doesn't need to be configured (from end-user perspective) or some other issue doesn't force it to be done in xml, don't put the bean-definitions/wirings into the XML-configurations, use #Autowired and such.
2) With Spring, you can use #Qualifier to match a certain implementation of the interface, if multiple exist. Yes, this means you have to name the actual implementations, but I don't mind.
In our case, using XML for handling all the DI would bloat the XML-configuration files a lot, although it could be done in a separate xml-file (or files), so it's not that valid point ;). As I said, it's a matter of taste and I just think it's easier and more clean to handle the injections via annotations (you can see what services/repositories/whatever something uses just by looking at the class instead of going through the XML-file looking for the bean-declaration).
Edit: Here's an opinion about #Autowired vs. XML that I completely agree with: Spring #Autowired usage
I like to keep my code clear, as you pointed. XML feets better, at least for me, in the IOC principle.
The fundamental principle of Dependency Injection for configuration is that application objects should not be responsible for looking up the resources or collaborators they depend on. Instead, an IoC container should configure the objects, externalizing resource lookup from application code into the container. (J2EE Development without EJB - Rod Johnson - page 131)
Again, it just my point of view, no fundamentalism in there :)
EDIT: Some useful discussions out there:
http://forum.springsource.org/showthread.php?t=95126
http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=61217
"But what is bad about xml?" It's yet another file to manage and yet another place to have to go look for a bug. If your annotations are right next to your code it's much easier to mange and debug.
Like all things, dependency injection should be used in moderation. Moreover, all trappings of the injections should be segregated from the application code and relegated to the code associated with main.
In general applications should have a boundary that separates the abstract application code from the concrete implementation details. All the source code dependencies that cross that boundary should point towards the application. I call the concrete side of that boundary, the main partition, because that's where 'main' (or it's equivalent) should live.
The main partition consists of factory implementations, strategy implementations, etc. And it is on this side of the boundary that the dependency injection framework should do it's work. Then those injected dependencies can be passed across the boundary into the application by normal means. (e.g. as arguments).
The number of injected dependencies should be relatively small. A dozen or less. In which case, the decision between XML or annotations is moot.
Also don't forget Spring JavaConfig.
In my case the developers writing the application are different that the ones configuring it (different departments, different technologies/languages) and the last group doesn't even has access to the source code (which is the case in many enterprise setups). That makes Guice unusable since I would have to expose source code rather than consuming the xmls configured by the developers implementing the app.
Overall I think it is important to recognize that providing the components and assembling/configuring an application are two different exercises and provide if needed this separation of concerns.
I just have a couple of things to add to what's already here.
To me, DI configuration is code. I would like to treat it as such, but the very nature of XML prevents this without extra tooling.
Spring JavaConfig is a major step forward in this regard, but it still has complications. Component scanning, auto-magic selection of interface implementations, and semantics around CGLIB interception of #Configuration annotated classes make it more complex than it needs to be. But it's still a step forward from XML.
The benefit of separating IoC metadata from application objects is overstated, especially with Spring. Perhaps if you confined yourself to the Spring IoC container only, this would be true. But Spring offers a wide application stack built on the IoC container (Security, Web MVC, etc). As soon as you leverage any of that, you're tied to the container anyway.
XML has the only benefit of a declarative style that is defined clearly separated from the application code itself. That stays independent from DI concerns. The downsides are verbosity, poor re-factoring robustness and a general runtime failure behaviour. There is just a general (XML) tool support with little benefit compared to IDE support for e.g. Java. Besides this XML comes with a performance overhead so it usually is slower than code solutions.
Annoations often said to be more intuitive and robust when re-factoring application code. Also they benefit from a better IDE guidance like guice provides. But they mix application code with DI concerns. An application gets dependent on a framework. Clear separation is almost impossible. Annotations are also limited when describing different injection behaviour at the same place (constructor, field) dependent on other circumstances (e.g. robot legs problem). Moreover they don't allow to treat external classes (library code) like your own source. Therefore they are considered to run faster than XML.
Both techniques have serious downsides. Therefore I recommend to use Silk DI. It is declarative defined in code (great IDE support) but 100% separated from your application code (no framework dependency). It allows to treat all code the same no matter if it is from your source or a external library. Problems like the robot legs problem are easy to solve with usual bindings. Furthermore it has good support to adapt it to your needs.
DI creates an extra layer of abstraction so that if your implementation class ever changes you can simply plug in a different class with the same interface.
But why not simply refactor when you want to use a different implementation class? Other languages like Python and Ruby work fine this way. Why not Java?
That is an incorrect characterization of dependency injection. It is not that you have one implementation of a particular interface that changes over time; rather, it is possible that there will be many different implementations of an interface all at once, and which implementation will be used can vary over multiple different runs of the program. For example, in your actual program, you might want to use one implementation, while during unit testing, you might want to "mock out" that implementation with an alternative version that is easier to test. In this case, refactoring is not a solution, because you need to be able to test all the time without interrupting the rest of the development process.
It should also be noted that dependency injection is usually used as a solution to the Singleton anti-pattern; it allows one to have a singleton object that can be easily mocked out during testing. And, if later it turns out that the singleton assumption really is incorrect, that singleton can be replaced with various implementations.
Some resources which you may find helpful in better understanding the topic:
Java on Guice: Dependency Injection the Java Way
Big Modular Java with Google Guice
Singletons are Pathological Liars
Why Singletons are Evil
Root Cause of Singletons
Dependency Injection Myth: Reference Passing
So you are saying Python and Ruby can't have dependency injection? Or Java can't work fine without DI?
Besides you've missed the one of the most characteristic of DI, that you can have Dynamic DI, not just at compile time, but at run time. In Software Engineering there is always a question of is there too much Abstraction and too little and it really comes down to how you design a solution to your problem
Not quite. The issue here is that when you write a code snippet like:
Runnable r = new MyFooRunnable();
you essentially decide that the Runnable you will need is a MyFooRunnable (and not a MyBarRunnable or a third one). Occasionally you will want to postpone that decision from compile time to deployment time, so that the deployer can decide how the individual modules your application consists of are to be glued together.
Traditionally this has been done with factories, but this just moves the actual decision around in code and you still have to know all the possibilities when coding the factory or let it read instructions from a configuration file (which tends to be fragile to refactoring).
Dependency Injection is a formalization of configured factories in a way so the code does not need to know hardly anything about how things work. This is also why annotations have been found so useful for pointing out where the Dependency Injection should happen. If running the code in a non-DI setting (like a junit test) then there does not happen anything (which would have been hard to do with Factories littered all over).
So, Dependency Injection used liberally allows you to write modules that "snap" well together without knowing of each other at compile time. This is very similar to the jar-file concept, but it has taken longer to mature.