Develop Reference

Spring Dependency Injection vs. Writing to Interfaces

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?

Introduce per-customer personalization in java application

I've searched on internet and here on SO, but couldn't wrap my mind around the various options.
What I need is a way to be able to introduce customer specific customization in any point of my app, in an "external" way, external as in "add drop-in jar and get the customized behavior".
I know that I should implement some sort of plugin system, but I really don't know where to start.
I've read some comment about spring, osgi, etc, can't figure out what is the best approach.
Currently, I have a really simple structure like this:
com.mycompany.module.client.jar // client side applet
com.mycompany.module.server.jar // server side services
I need a way of doing something like:
1) extend com.mycompany.module.client.MyClass as com.mycompany.module.client.MyCustomerClass
2) jar it separately from the "standard" jars: com.mycompany.customer.client.jar
3) drop in the jar
4) start the application, and have MyCustomerClass used everywhere the original MyClass was used.
Also, since the existing application is pretty big and based on a custom third-party framework, I can't introduce devastating changes.
Which is the best way of doing this?
Also, I need the solution to be doable with java 1.5, since the above mentioned third-party framework requires it.

Spring 3.1 is probably the easiest way to go about implementing this, as their dependency injection framework provides exactly what you need. With Spring 3.1's introduction of Bean Profiles, separating concerns can be even easier.
But integrating Spring into an existing project can be challenging, as there is some core architecture that must be created. If you are looking for a quick and non-invasive solution, using Spring containers programmatically may be an ideal approach.
Once you've initialized your Spring container in your startup code, you can explicitly access beans of a given interface by simply querying the container. Placing a single jar file with the necessary configuration classes on the classpath will essentially automatically include them.

Personalization depends on the application design strongly. You can search for a pluggable application on the Internet and read a good article (for an example: http://solitarygeek.com/java/a-simple-pluggable-java-application). In the pluggable application, you can add or remove a feature that a user decides. A way for the pluggable application is using the Interface for de-coupling of API layer and its implementation.
There is a good article in here

User personalisation is something which needs to be in the design. What you can change as an after thought if the main body of code cannot be changed, is likely to be very limited.
You need to start be identifying what can be changed on a per user basis. As it appears this cannot be changed, this is your main limiting factor. From this list determine what would be useful to change and implement this.

Java Dependency injection: XML or annotations

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.

How to choose between methods of acquiring dependencies?

I've seen at least three ways of acquiring dependencies in a Java object without coupling the object to the creation of the dependency;
Dependency Injection
- some framework injects a required object into another object based on an external configuration, example: Spring managed beans
Dependency Lookup
- a class looks up a required dependency in some kind of directory service, example: JNDI lookups in a Java EE container
Static Factories
- an object in a global scope provides instances on demand - the standard Java SE APIs seem to be littered with these, example: java.util.Logger.getLogger(name), java.util.Calendar.getInstance()
What guidance can you provide as to which is most appropriate for a situation?

I prefer dependency injection, because the object need not know how it acquires the references it needs.
Dependency lookup still requires the object to know about the lookup service and its URL.
Static factories are similar to lookup services.

I prefer dependency injection.
When I talk about DI with Spring Framework I see following
It's supported by IDEs (error check, visualization).
You can setup other needed stuff like AOP, properties loading, ...
You have big config possibilities - XML, annotation, JavaConfig
Can be use also in desktop application.
These outbalance every negatives like dependency on another library. Why should I use another approach?

This really depends on the context. If you are writing a self-contained Maths API you might want to use static factories because the code will be less verbose, setup-free and maybe more efficient. If you need to access/provide a remote dependency, a JNDI/LDAP lookup, or ESB messaging would work well. For injecting your services/DAO's/datasources into your typical enterprise server code you'd be better off using one of the common D.I. frameworks like Google Guice or Spring.
There is no single 'best' solution in software design; it's always a tradeoff.

Dependency Injection: What's wrong with good old-fashioned refactoring?

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.