I have a question about using Gin to inject GWT Async RPC service.
I have two classes both using the same Async service:
class TheViewA {
#Inject
public TheViewA(MyServiceAsync myServiceASync) {
....
}
}
class TheViewB {
#Inject
public TheViewB(MyServiceASync myServiceASync) {
....
}
}
This works fine. However, I found out this will cause GWT internally call:
GWT.create(MyServiceASync.class)
twice for each injection. I don't know what is the disadvantage of this, but I am thinking they can both share a single MyServiceAsync instance.
Can someone tell me how to configure Gin (Guice) so that only one instance of MyServiceAsync is created for both injection?
Or Is it OK to create separate instances for both injection and why?
Many thanks.
When it comes to injection, if Gin does not find a bind for a given type, it automatically fallsback to GWT.create() to create an instance. This is why ClientBundle/GWT-RPC/i18n and the like, simply Just Works, and you do not have to bind them into your own extension of AbstractGinModule.
Of course when Gin finds another injection of the same type, it injects another instance. To create and inject a singleton instance simply bind your GWT-RPC async service interface into #Singleton scope. Like this:
public class YourModule extends AbstractGinModule {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(MyServiceAsync.class).in(Singleton.class);
}
}
Or you can create a Provider<MyServiceAsync> that always returns a singleton instance, but the previous approach is far simpler.
A singleton async instance injected throughout your application, is generally preferred.
Related
I am trying to use and understand CDI, when I use #Inject in a simple pojo class, it throws me NPE.
example
Greeting.java
public Class Greeting {
public String greet() {
System.out.println("Hello");
}
}
Test.java
import javax.inject.Inject;
public class Test {
#Inject
private Greeting greeting;
public void testGreet() {
greeting.testGreet();
}
}
When I call testGreet() it throws NPE, why is the greeting instance null. Does #Inject way of adding dependency only be used in container managed bean?
Note: jar is not the problem here.
TL;DR:
#Inject-annotated fields are only populated for container-instantiated beans.
Long version:
The CDI container provides you a lot of utilities for easily injecting dependencies to your beans, but it doesn't work by magic. The container can only populate the annotated fields of a client bean if the client bean itself was instantiated by the container. When the container is instantiating the object the sequence of events is as follows:
Your bean's constructor is called.
#Inject-annotated fields (and some other
annotations, #PersistenceContext and #EJB for instance) are
populated.
#PostConstruct-annotated no-args method is called.
Your bean is finished.
You're facing a classic bootstrapping problem, how to move from non-container-managed code into container-managed code. Your options are:
Get access to an instance of BeanManager from your JavaEE container via JNDI lookup. This is technical and a bit clumsy.
Use a CDI extension library such as Apache DeltaSpike. (Example: BeanProvider.getContextualReference(Test.class, false);)
Modify your application to start in a situation where you can inject your Test class rather than calling new Test();. This can be done for example by setting up a startup singleton ejb, which calls your test in it's #PostConstruct-annotated initialisation.
Hope this helps.
You need a JavaEE container, and than you need to define Greeting and Test as managed beans. After that you can inject one in another.
Try to take a look at:
https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/tutorial/doc/girch.html
Your class should be implemented from Serializable for being injectable as a "CDI Bean"
I am newbie in cdi and these are my first steps.
I have a bean in ejb module:
#Stateless
public class TestBean {
public String getIt(){
return "test";
}
}
I have a POJO in war module (I tried with #EJB and #Inject - same result)
public class SaveAction extends Action{
#EJB
private TestBean bean;
#Override
public void execute(){
....
String test = bean.getIt(); //HERE I GET java.lang.NullPointerException
...
}
}
Both war and ejb are inside ear. In log I see
EJB5181:Portable JNDI names for EJB TestBean:
[java:global/example.com/my-ejb/TestBean!com.example.TestBean,
java:global/example.com/my-ejb/TestBean]]]
From that I conclude that bean is initialized - but I can't find it. What am I doing wrong?
CDI and other dependency injection containers don't use magic! It's just ordinary java code that cannot do more or less than any other java code written anywhere. So it is impossible for a framework to do injection when an object is instantiated directly via new:
SaveAction action = new SaveAction();
// don't expect any injection has happened - it can't! no magic!
// action.bean is still null here!
The framework does not have any idea that an object like SaveAction has been instantiated. (Therefore it would be necessary to somehow inform the framework about the newly created object - but neither the constructor nor the 'new' statement do this! Just think one minute about how you would write such a framework code! It's not possible!* ).
To make injection work, the object must be created by the container instead! Otherwise it is NOT managed! (See also chapter 3.7 of the Web Beans specification (JSR 299)).
The best way to do this is to let the container inject the object into another already managed bean. It seems this just deferes the problem, but there are some already managed beans in your application, like the servlet!
Suggestion: Make your SaveAction CDI aware (e.g. annotate it with #Default) and let it be injected into your servlet!
Tutorials:
http://middlewaremagic.com/jboss/?p=1063
http://hudson.jboss.org/jenkins/job/JBoss-AS7-Docs/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/guides/developer-getting-started-guide/target/docbook/publish/en-US/html/helloworld.html
*) In theory it should be possible using aspect oriented programming or instrumentation to manipulate the constructors of beans to notify the container if they are invoked. But that's a very complex concept with many unsolved issues I think.
I'm trying to understand CDI using Weld. Got the next structure:
#ApplicationScoped
public class MainFacade {
#Inject
private FooFacade fooFacade;
private static int ins=0;
public MainFacade() {
super();
ins++;
System.out.println("MainFacade instance = "+ins);
}
public FooFacade getFooFacade() {
return fooFacade;
}
}
Where FooFacade is also #ApplicationScope.
When app is starting I've get a MainFacade instance = 1. When I inject it in other class (GWT RPC servlet) and call mainFacade.getFooFacade() then new instance of MainFacade are created along with a new instance of fooFacade.
Thought that Weld would return me the same instance of application scope bean anywhere I inject it. What I'm doing wrong?
I don't think this test will work well to verify that an application scoped bean is really a "singleton".
If you inject this bean into other beans, Weld will create a proxy which will handle the delegation of all invocations to the correct instance. This is important especially if you inject request scoped bean into session scoped beans for example.
The proxy will basically extend MainFacade which is required because otherwise the proxy cannot be injected into the fields where the injection is happening. When creating an instance of the proxy, the default constructor of you bean will be executed. As Weld will create many proxies, you are seeing multiple logs to the console. You could verify this by adding something like this to your constructor:
System.out.println("Type: "+this.getClass().getName());
When you use #ApplicationScoped Weld creates a proxy that calls constructor too, specification here.
Which one is the best way of injecting my dependencies? Why?
What is the difference between the two?
public abstract class Service {
private IConfig config;
#Inject
public Service(IConfog config) {
this.config = config
}
}
Or
public abstract class Service {
#Inject private IConfig config;
#Inject
public Service() {
}
}
Constructor injection (1st) is preferred over setter injection given that it makes it easier to support "immutable" entities or entities whose behaviour is well defined and non-modifiable after construction. Constructor vs Setter inject
For me the rule of thumb is to first prefer constructor injection and jump off to setter injection if constructor inject requires me to bend my back i.e. when working with legacy code with "OOP getter and setter" methods.
EDIT: I'm assuming you are trying to decide between "constructor" and "setter" constructor. But it also seems that you are using abstract classes which can't be instantiated. Maybe you have something else in mind?
First of all, I do not put injection-related annotations in abstract classes - in my opinion there is no sense in deciding how something should be instantiated if it actually cannot be instantiated (of course that's only my opinion with which others may agree or not).
Usually I do it in the following way:
public abstract class AbstractService {
private IConfig config;
public AbstractService(IConfog config) {
this.config = config
}
}
public class Service extends AbstractService {
#Inject
public Service(IConfig config) {
super(config);
}
}
Now, you can use both classes with and without dependency injection (construct it by hand, passing all required references). Also you can be sure that Service is instantiated in the appropriate state every time.
The main goal of dependency injection is to make unit testing easy by allowing to do
Service serviceToTest = new Service(mockConfig);
or
Service serviceToTest = new Service();
serviceToTest.setConfig(mockConfig);
The second way of injecting dependencies makes it impossible to do the abover. You can only test it by letting Guice create the service and inject a mock dependency, or by using reflection to set the mock dependency.
I have a problem with injecting a bean into a helper class. It works basically like this: I create an object in the page constructor that does some work, returns some data and I show these on the page. In this helper object, a service should be injected via #Autowired annotation. However, I always get a null pointer exception when I use it. I also tried #SpringBean but it didn't help. On the other hand, when I inject this service directly into the page with #SpringBean, it's accessible and works fine. Do you know where the problem is?
This is the page:
public class Page extends BasePage {
public Page() {
HelperObject object = new HelperObject(new Application("APP_NAME"));
String result = object.getData();
add(new Label("label", result));
}
}
Helper object:
public class HelperObject {
private Application app;
#Autowired
private Service service;
public HelperObject(Application app) {
this.app = app;
}
public String getData() {
// use service, manipulate data, return a string
}
}
You can inject dependencies into non-Spring-non-Wicket-new-created objects using #SpringBean by calling InjectorHolder.getInjector().inject(this); in its constructor.
For example:
class MyPojo {
#SpringBean
MyDumbDAO dao;
MyPojo() {
InjectorHolder.getInjector().inject(this);
}
void justDoIt() {
dao.duh(); // dao is there!
}
}
Note that it will only work if called within a Wicket-managed request. If not (ie, if it's a Quartz job, or a Filter executed before Wicket's), the Application instance will not be available, and the injector won't know how to get the dependencies.
Another solution is to use Spring's #Configurable. It uses AspectJ to intercept creation of annotated objects, and inject its dependencies, even if you instantiate them directly with new (or some other framework, like Hibernate, creates them internally). But this requires runtime or build-time (works better for me) bytecode manipulation, which may be too much magic for some people.
#SpringBean only injects dependencies into classes that inherit from Wicket's Component. #Autowired only injects dependencies into classes created by Spring itself. That means you can't automatically inject a dependency into an object you create with new.
(Edit: you can also add a #SpringBean injection to your class by injecting in the constructor:
InjectorHolder.getInjector().inject(this);)
My normal workaround for this is to use my application class to help. (I'm a little puzzled by your use of new Application(...). I assume this isn't actually org.apache.wicket.Application.) For example:
public class MyApplication extends AuthenticatedWebApplication implements
ApplicationContextAware {
private ApplicationContext ctx;
public void setApplicationContext(ApplicationContext applicationContext)
throws BeansException {
this.ctx = applicationContext;
}
public static MyApplication get() {
return (MyApplication) WebApplication.get();
}
public static Object getSpringBean(String bean) {
return get().ctx.getBean(bean);
}
public static <T> T getSpringBean(Class<T> bean) {
return get().ctx.getBean(bean);
}
....
}
In my Spring application context:
<!-- Set up wicket application -->
<bean id="wicketApplication" class="uk.co.humboldt.Project.MyApplication"/>
My helper object then looks up the service on demand:
public class HelperObject {
private Service getService() {
return MyApplication.getSpringBean(Service.class);
}
The best practice would be to create your objects via a factory bean (that has those properties injected by Spring, and have that factory inject those properties to objects it spawns - pure IoC).
You should really avoid using SpringContext all over the place (or any other similar solution for that matter).
Here is a partial list of reasons:
Your code gets coupled with Spring way too much (low-cohesion).
You mix plumbing code with the business-logic.
Your code is less readable.
It's less maintainable (e.g., changing the name of the service bean would lead to code modification - this violates SRP & OCP).
It's less testable (e.g., you need the Spring framework to test it).