Develop Reference

Is each Play framework web request handled with a new dependency injected controller instance, but then what about static controller methods?

My questions are about the lifecycle of controllers in the Play framework for Java, if the controllers are stateful instances or stateless with static methods, and how to use dependency injection in the controller code.
Is each web request handled by a new instance of a Play controller class, i.e. can a controller store state in fields such as services injected into the controller constructor?
(where in the documentation is it explained?)
Has the Play framework changed since earlier versions (and if so, at what version?) regarding if controllers are stateful instances or stateless controllers with static methods?
Where can you see code examples about how the framework injects services into a controller instance when stateful controller is used and example of how to inject services into a static controller method?
Regarding the latter, i.e. injection into a static method I suppose that would either have to be a parameter to the method which the frameworks will add, or if not possible you maybe instead will have to use a service locator from within the method e.g. instantiate a Guice module class and then use "injector.getInstance" from within the static controller method.
This subject is touched in the section "Dependency injecting controllers" at the following page:
https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.4.x/JavaDependencyInjection
However, it does not show with code how to actually inject services into a controller instance (but probably the same way as other "components" i.e. with #Inject annotation) and certainly it does not currently show how to use DI with a static controller method.
I am confused about these things because I have not found documentation being clear about my questions, and I have also read in a Play book (from 2013) that the controller methods should be programmed as stateless and the controller methods should be static.
However, when now using activator for generating a Play application for Java with the latest Play version (2.4.6) I can see that the generated Controller method (Application.index) is NOT static.
Also, at the following documentation page, the controller method is NOT static:
https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.4.x/JavaActions
This is confusing, and since it is VERY fundamental to understand whether or not each request is handled by a Controller instance or not (i.e. if state can be used) I think this should be better documented at the page about Controller/Actions than the current documentation (the above linked page) which is not explaining it.
The documentation about dependency injection touches the subject about static and non-static methods at the section "Dependency injecting controllers" mentioning "static routes generator" but I think it should be better explained including code examples.
If someone in the Play team is reading this question, then please add some information to the above linked pages, for example please do mention (if my understanding is correct) that in previous versions of Play the controller methods were static and for those versions you should never store state in fields, but in later versions (beginning from version x?) each request is handled by an instance of a controller and can therefore use state (e.g. constructor parameters injected by the framework).
Please also provide code examples about injection used with static controller methods and injection into stateful controller instances with one instance per request.
The section "Component lifecycle" in the dependency injection page only mentions "components" but I think it should also be explicit about the controller lifecycle and its injection, since it is such a fundamental and important knowledge to communicate clearly to all developers to avoid bugs caused by misunderstandings about being stateful or not.

Is each web request handled by a new instance of a Play controller class, i.e. can a controller store state in fields such as services injected into the controller constructor? (where in the documentation is it explained?)
As far as I can tell, controllers are by default singleton objects. This is not clearly documented, but it is implied that controller instances are reused. See the migration guide for Playframework 2.4:
The injected routes generator also supports the # operator on routes, but it has a slightly different meaning (since everything is injected), if you prefix a controller with #, instead of that controller being directly injected, a JSR 330 Provider for that controller will be injected. This can be used, for example, to eliminate circular dependency issues, or if you want a new action instantiated per request.
Also, check this commend made by James Roper (Play core committer) about if controllers are singleton or not:
Not really - if using Guice, each time the controller is injected into something, a new instance will be created by default. That said, the router is a singleton, and so by association, the controllers it invokes are singleton. But if you inject a controller somewhere else, it will be instantiated newly for that component.
This suggests that the default is to reuse controller instances when responding to requests and, if you want a new action per request, you need to use the syntax described in the migration guide. But... since I'm more inclined to prove and try things instead of just believe, I've created a simple controller to check that statement:
package controllers
import play.api._
import play.api.mvc._
class Application extends Controller {
def index = Action {
println(this)
Ok(views.html.index("Your new application is ready."))
}
}
Doing multiple requests to this action prints the same object identity for all the requests made. But, if I use the # operator on my routes, I start to get different identities for each request. So, yes, controllers are (kind of) singletons by default.
Has the Play framework changed since earlier versions (and if so, at what version?) regarding if controllers are stateful instances or stateless controllers with static methods?
By default, Play had always advocated stateless controllers, as you can see at the project homepage:
Play is based on a lightweight, stateless, web-friendly architecture.
That had not changed. So, you should not use controllers' fields/properties to keep data that changes over time/requests. Instead, just use controllers' fields/properties to keep a reference to other components/services that are also stateless.
Where can you see code examples about how the framework injects services into a controller instance when stateful controller is used and example of how to inject services into a static controller method?
Regarding code examples, Lightbend templates repository is the place to go. Here are some examples that use dependency injection at the controllers level:
https://github.com/adrianhurt/play-api-rest-seed
https://github.com/knoldus/playing-reactive-mongo
https://github.com/KyleU/boilerplay
Dependency Injection with static methods is not supported, and that is why Playframework stills offers old apis to use with static methods. The rule of thumb here is: choose between DI and static methods. Trying to use both will just bring complexity to your application.

Ok, thank you marcospereira.
I have now also confirmed that you indeed get different instances (different toString values which can be printed/logged in a controller method) of the controller for each request.
For those who are interested, the solution (to get different instances of controller class for each request) is to use for example the following:
GET / #controllers.Application.index()
instead of the following:
GET / controllers.Application.index()
in the file "conf/routes"
AND to also use the following:
routesGenerator := InjectedRoutesGenerator
instead of the following:
routesGenerator := StaticRoutesGenerator
in the file "build.sbt"
Regarding the statement that Play has a "stateless" architecture:
Maybe I am wrong, but as far as I understand the terminology, the "stateless" means that the web server does not store any state between requests?
The word "stateless" does not mean that a controller instance can not use fields, e.g. injected into the constructor.
If an injected object is stored as a field in a controller, then that field is a "state" of the controller.
Therefore, even if you use "InjectedRoutesGenerator" and the "#" prefix to get "stateful" controller instances, that injected "state" is only stored within one request, so you can still say that the framework itself is "stateless" since the server does not store any state between multiple requests.
Please do correct me if I have misunderstood something about Play being stateless.

Spring prototype scope - Use Cases?

I have clear understanding of the various scopes of Spring beans. But I am looking for some use cases of prototype scope of a bean in enterprise tier projects. It would be great if you can share some real life use cases of the prototype scope (not the request scope).

As someone who previously worked at SpringSource and have talked to the developers on this topic. Here is my take. Prototype is great for testing things out, hence the name prototype and not create new or something more description of creating a new instance of the bean each and every time you request it from the Spring container.
I have also found in my use over the years that I cannot think of any other place where prototype makes sense in any real-world production application. If your object holds state, it typically shouldn't be a Spring bean. I have found in all the applications I have worked on that all beans are Services, Repositories, and Singleton non state holding objects where I need to add features like Transactionality, JPA, JMS and the likes that give us the enterprise features that POJOs don't have.
The objects in my system that hold state are my Entities and View DTOs maybe, or other things that just make no sense to be a Spring Bean. So therefore in my applications in production there hasn't been a single "prototype" bean.

I used prototype beans to declare configured form elements (a textbox configured to validate names, e-mail addresses for example) and get "living" instances of them for every form being created in my webapp. The details are not important, only the principle, that I would summarize this way:
There is a class that has many config parameters
You need to create instances of it with a set of predefined configuration (fancy1, fancy2, stc.)
Think of the applicationContext.getBean("myBeanConfiguredFancy1") as a kind of factory method that creates the instance as preconfigured in the xml

I have used prototype mostly in conjunction with spring lookup-method. My application is a game server that needs to decode incoming bytes at tcp port. Consider the following bean definition
<bean id="channelBufferProtocol" class="org.menacheri.protocols.impl.ChannelBufferProtocol">
<lookup-method name="createLengthBasedFrameDecoder" bean="lengthFieldBasedFrameDecoder"/>
<property name="eventDecoder" ref="eventDecoder"></property>
<property name="lengthFieldPrepender" ref="lengthFieldPrepender"></property>
<property name="eventEncoder" ref="eventEncoder"></property>
</bean>
Inside the protocol implementation class, I have the following code to create the frame decoder pipeline.addLast("lengthDecoder", createLengthBasedFrameDecoder()); When this method is invoked, spring will create a new frame decoder instance and return it.
The bean returned by bean="lengthFieldBasedFrameDecoder" needs to be of scope prototype, since it is a stateful bean in my app.
Note: A protocol is nothing but a specific set of decoders and encoders chained together. "Chain of responsibility" design pattern.

We can use prototype scope in case of model classes(also called as Entities in hibernate) as application need different instances of model class for each thread/request.

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.

Factory class vs Spring DI

As per my understanding both Factory class and Spring DI follows the Dependency injection. I mean in both the cases external entity is used to push the dependency. Right?
My question is which one i should go for between factory classes and Spring DI when my intention is just to get the objects . Assume i don't want any other features like aop, dao support etc. Only purpose is to get the objects either from Factory class or Spring DI. Which one is preferable.
on some site read this statement
DI loosely coupled and less intrusive in comparison to Factory classes
But could not get how spring DI loosely coupled and less intrusive than factory classes?
in both the cases we have to insert some kind of get object code in our core program .

Spring DI promotes loosely coupled code because the Spring container injects your dependencies based on configuration. If you are injecting interface implementations, you don't have to change code to change which specific implementation gets injected, unless you consider your configuration code, which many do.
If you use a Factory to create configured objects that are used by the rest of your code, you are writing code to create the objects, configure them, etc. If you want to change what the factory returns, you have to change actual code, which some would argue is a more intrusive change.
Typically Spring is used to configure how the various layers of your application are wired together. X service takes such and such DAO implementations, for example. That's application level organization. Lets say you have a scenario where want to create a button for every row in a list -- in that case you could use a factory to create the buttons. This scenario is based on a runtime situation where the GUI has different elements that you couldn't configure up front (because its based on the data), so DI makes less sense here.
EDIT - based on your comment questions, I think the primary point here is that you have to consider is that Spring is also an Inversion of Control container. That means you don't program in which components in your application go where. Without IoC, you might do something like
MyServiceImpl extends MyService {
Dao1 = new Dao1Impl(); // you programmatically configure which components go in here
Dao2 = new Dao2Impl();
....
}
instead you do something like
MyServiceImpl extends MyService {
public Dao1; // you haven't specified which components, only interfaces
public Dao2;
....
}
In the second code sample, Spring (or whatever you use) will inject the appropriate DAO instances for you. You have moved control of which components to use to a higher level. So IoC and DI go hand and hand, IoC promotes loose coupling because in your component definitions (i.e. interfaces) you only specify behavior.
In other words, IoC and DI are not necessary for loose coupling; you can have loose coupling with a Factory too
MyServiceImpl extends MyService {
public dao1
public dao2;
MyServiceImpl(){
dao1 = DaoFactory.getDao1();
...
}
....
}
here your service still only depends on DAO definitions and you use the factory to get implementations. The caveat is that your service is now coupled to the factory. You can make it more loose by passing a Factory into your constructor if you want....
Also, dont forget that Spring provides other useful functionalities, like its transaction management. That's incredibly helpful, even though you said for your app you don't need it.

But could not get how spring DI loosely coupled and less intrusive
than factory classes? in both the cases we have to insert some kind of
get object code in our core program .
Spring makes it less intrusive because it uses reflection to automatically "inject/create" the dependencies. Thus your code does not need a reference to a the factory.
Spring is generally used for "Singleton-like" object creation. People generally use custom factories for transient throw away object creation (like request objects).
In fact often times you will make Spring create and inject your custom factories (ie factory of a factory).

What beans do you wire in a spring mvc app?

I am wiring my UserService type classes using spring's IOC.
But what about my User class?
I have a interface User, then a UserImpl class.
In my controller action's do I just do:
User u = new UserImpl();
Or would it sometimes make sense to use IOC for this also?
Sometimes I use a different constructor also when instantiating a class, based on some conditions. I guess your stuck in these situations?

It will not make sense to use dependency injection or IOC for your business objects like User because business objects are not the dependencies of the class they are the part of the class using them.

Spring IOC, by default, will create Singletons for you. Which means all user threads using your app will share that single instance of class. This is generally fine for Service type classes. If needed this singleton behavior can be changed to object per request (prototype), but this will cause you to change this setting for the users of the non-sigleton object as well.
Domain/business classes are state-full, it's easiest to create such objects once-per-request in order to avoid concurrency issues.