Is there any point in having a constructor in a Java Web Service class? (There seems to be no consensus in the articles I have found so far.)
I am using Jersey to implement a REST web service that needs to have a non-static common object (a string-processing utility class) made available to various (non-static) methods of the service.
Initializing this common object would typically happen in the constructor of the class, if that were not a web service. But what about now that it is?
If a constructor cannot be used, should I put, in every relevant method, a synchronized block that checks whether the common object is available and, if not, initialize it? Or is there a better approach?
Every web service class does have a constructor. If you don't include one then Java automatically adds the default no-arg constructor for you. You can:
Initialize the utility instance when declaring it's class variable
Manually add the default constructor and initialize the utility
instance in it
Or if your using JEE6 you can inject the utility instance into your
web service
It's just an opinion, but if you want to adhere 100% to REST your web service should be stateless. Initializing common objects in web service method calls implies state so it's not the best idea.*
*this is debatable, as can be seen in comments. However any synchronization and shared object initialization if not necesarry IMO should be a no-no in REST applications.
Contructor certainly is a solution, even better one would be to use dependency injection and inject the object you need to your webservice instance at creation.
Try #PostConstruct annotation. It might help you.
Related
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.
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.
I'm in the situation where I need to create a cache to store certains values which need to be updated from the database. Since this cache needs to be singular, some sort of singleton implementation seems appropriate.
The problem is that this cache also needs access to the database via an EJB, which can't be injected since the cache exists outside of context (and yes, I'm looking forward to the #singleton annotation in EJB3.1).
The obvious solution is to pass the EJB into the cache as a parameter, but passing EJBs outside of context feels wrong, though I can't say why. Is it accepted practice?
Do note that you are normally not passing the EJB itself "outside of context". What you are typically passing around is a 'stub'. This stub can be passed around as any other normal object reference. Any calls on it will redirect back to an actual bean instance in the EJB container.
So if you have a cache in say the web module, have a backing bean injected with an EJB (or do a JNDI lookup) and pass that reference to a (static) cache, then I don't see a fundamental problem with that.
For all intends and purposes, the #Singleton annotation was indeed made for something like this. Hope you'll able to use it soon ;)
The main advantage of EJB is inside container. If you pass it outside you loose all the advantages which a container provide. Why don't you create a method in EJB that return the data you need. And the you can do, for example, JNDI lookup and call that method. In this way EJB will stay in the container and you will get your data.
I have an asynchronous method in my EJB singleton that's called from another method in the same class. I already know that I can't call the asynchronous method directly, I have to obtain an EJB proxy. The problem is, I don't want the asynchronous method to be visible outside the class; but when I make it private, it's not executed asynchronously. (I'm using Glassfish v3.)
The javadocs don't say anything about the required access level. So should this be considered a bug in Glassfish?
method annotation cannot be used in private methods. When Glassfish is compiling your EJB it will basically convert your annotation into a piece of code that will surround your code in a proxy. If your method is private it will bypass the proxy Glassfish created... So, in your case I suggest to create a new EJB with your asynchronous method in inject it in your current EJB
That's a very interesting bit of feedback. I can see the value in what you are trying to do. Try marking your bean as an #LocalBean and annotating your #Asynchronous method as protected.
As #LocalBean support is basically done via subclassing the bean class (dynamically or statically), it isn't really possible for the container to override the private method. But I can certainly see your use case. If the protected method approach doesn't work, we can probably add this as an enhancement to EJB.next.
Would still give access to other beans in the same package, but it's at least less public. I've often wished Java had an 'only subclasses' scope. I've almost never used protected and thought, "great, now everyone in my package can access this too."
When using Spring AOP to create a proxy for a class using NameMatchMethodPointcutAdvisor and BeanNameAutoProxyCreator does this essentially proxy every call to the object, but only apply the advice to the matched methods, or somehow create a Proxied object that only has those methods and uses the normal object for the calls that are supposed to be intercepted?
The way, I think I understand it is that it does proxy every call to the object but then only calls the Advisor on the methods that match - but I can't find a good example/post to confirm this.
Depends on the technique used. (It is configurable by an attribute proxy-target-class in your aop config)
JDK dynamic proxies are proxies by interface - each methods of the interface goes through the proxy, as you said, and if it matches happens to be an "advised" method, the advisor is applied. Otherwise it is delegated to the original object
CGLIB proxies are effectively subclasses defined at runtime of your concrete classes. I can't be sure in this, but I assume only the "advised" methods are overridden, the rest retain the definition of the superclass.
However, no matter which mechanism is used:
it isn't your concern how exactly are the proxies implemented
this doesn't impact performance in a significant way - Debunking myths: proxies impact performance by the Spring team about proxy performance myths
or somehow create a Proxied object that only has those methods and uses the normal object for the calls that are supposed to be intercepted?
How would this actually work? When a class has a reference to the class that is being proxied, it only has one reference to it. It either has to invoke a proxy class or a non-proxied class. Spring can't know which methods you are calling and therefore can't give you one type if you need to call the advised method and another type if you're not.