If I have the following class:
public class ObjectDAOMongoDBImpl<T> extends GenericDAOMongoDBImpl<T, ObjectId> implements ObjectDAO<T> {
public ObjectDAOMongoDBImpl(Class<T> entityClass, Mongo mongo, Morphia morphia, String dbName) {
super(entityClass, mongo, morphia, dbName);
}
}
Where, entityClass is provided at run-time - how can I use guice to bind the said type to an interface?
public class RunnerModule extends AbstractModule {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(GenericDAO.class).to(ObjectDAOMongoDBImpl.class);
}
}
public class Runner<T, V> {
GenericDAO<T, V> dao;
#Inject
public Runner(GenericDAO<T, V> dao) {
this.dao = dao;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new RunnerModule());
injector.getInstance(Runner.class);
}
}
It's fine to define mongo, morphia, and dbName as literals to RunnerModule (is there a cleaner way?), but I have no way of knowing what entityClass is until runtime.
This isn't doable with Guice idiomatically, and it isn't its primary focus either.
jfpoilpret have said everything that can be said, but I would like to approach the problem from another direction, where you have the option to (possibly) solve your problem by losing type-safety.
So, in your code, you ask Guice to get an instance of your Runner<T, V> class like this
injector.getInstance(Runner.class);
but this can't be resolved by Guice, because Runner<T, V> has a dependency on GenericDAO<T, V>, but you didn't bind an exact implementation for it. So as jfpoilpret has said, you have to bind some concrete implementations for it in your module.
I'm guessing that you want to determine the exact GenericDAO<T, V> implementation that you pass to your Runner<T, V> based on some input data, which data's type isn't known at compile time. Now, let's assume you have two implementations.
bind(new TypeLiteral<GenericDAO<String, ObjectID>>(){}).to(StringDAO.class);
bind(new TypeLiteral<GenericDAO<Double, ObjectID>>(){}).to(IntegerDAO.class);
Based on different type of inputs you can do this
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new RunnerModule());
// possible input which you get from *somewhere* dynamically
Object object = 1.0;
TypeLiteral<?> matchedTypeLiteral = null;
for (Key<?> key : injector.getAllBindings().keySet()) {
TypeLiteral<?> typeLiteral = key.getTypeLiteral();
Type type = typeLiteral.getType();
if (type instanceof ParameterizedType) {
ParameterizedType parameterizedType = (ParameterizedType) type;
if (parameterizedType.getRawType() == GenericDAO.class) {
List<Type> actualTypeArguments = Arrays.asList(parameterizedType.getActualTypeArguments());
if (actualTypeArguments.get(0) == object.getClass())
matchedTypeLiteral = typeLiteral;
}
}
};
Runner<?, ?> runner = new Runner<>((GenericDAO<?, ?>) injector.getInstance(Key.get(matchedTypeLiteral)));
System.out.println(runner.dao.getClass()); // IntegerDAO.class
If Object object = "string";, then the other implementation will be found. This is of course rather ugly and can be improved with checking for sub-classes and stuff, but I think you get the idea. The bottom-line is that you can't get around this.
If you manage to do it (getting around it), please drop me an e-mail because I would like to know about it! I had faced the same problem as you're facing not too long ago. I've written a simple BSON codec where I wanted to load specific implementations of a generic interface based on the type of some arbitrary input. This worked well with Java-to-BSON mappings, but I couldn't do it the other way around in any sensible way, so I've opted for a simpler solution.
The way you wrote it, entityClass can only be Object.class (== Class<Object>), and nothing else.
Hence, first of all, your ObjectDAOMongoDBImpl should be generic:
public class ObjectDAOMongoDBImpl<T>
extends GenericDAOMongoDBImpl<T, ObjectId> ...
That part of the problem is related to java, not Guice.
Now for Guice part, you need to define a binding including the generic types, ie by using Guice TypeLiteral:
bind(new TypeLiteral<GenericDAO<T, V>>(){}).to(...);
where T and V must be known in the code above (can't just be generic parameters there).
Looking at this question may also give you further details related to your situation.
This question is a bit old, but I've recently ran into a similar problem, and managed to solve it quite elegantly by adding a tiny extra layer, a factory.
Consider the following repository:
public interface Repository<T extends Model<T>> {
void save(T t);
T load(long key);
}
class SomeDbRepositoryImpl<T extends Model<T>> implements Repository<T> {
private final SomeDbConnection db;
private final Class<T> type;
RepositoryImpl(final Class<T> type, final SomeDbConnection db) {
this.db = db;
this.type = type;
}
...
}
Then, suppose I have a service that needs an instance of Repository<User>. My first try was to try to make Guice pass an instance of Repository<User> in the constructor, and then I'd bind it somehow. The problem is that I really don't want to have to add repository bindings and providers for each model. If I were to do that, the code would look like this:
// Won't work.
class MyService {
private final Repository<User> userRepository;
#Inject MyService(final Repository<User> userRepository) {
this.userRepository = userRepository;
}
...
}
What I ended up doing is creating a RepositoryFactory class, which is not generic by itself, but it contains a generic method.
public interface RepositoryFactory {
<T extends Model<T>> Repository<T> getRepository(Class<T> type);
}
class SomeDbRepositoryFactoryImpl implements RepositoryFactory {
private final SomeDbConnection db;
#Inject SomeDbRepositoryFactoryImpl(final SomeDbConnection db) {
this.db = db;
#Override <T extends Model<T>> Repository<T> getRepository(Class<T> type) {
return new SomeDbRepositoryImpl(type, db);
}
}
So, this is completely type-safe, and I don't have to add a binding for each module. The service that uses a Repository would then look like:
class MyService {
private final Repository<User> userRepository;
#Inject MyService(final RepositoryFactory f) {
this.userRepository = f.getRepository(User.class);
}
...
}
You could also keep the instance of RepositoryFactory instead of already getting the Repository instance.
I hope this can be useful to someone.
Beyond what Kohányi has said, you could load the DAO or entity classes reflectively by name, and then bind only the specific types asked for in the command-line arguments:
package com.example;
public class App
{
public static void main(final String[] args)
{
final Injector appleInjector = Guice.createInjector(new DynamicDaoModule(getClass("com.example.AppleDao")));
appleInjector.getInstance(Runner.class);
final Injector orangeInjector = Guice.createInjector(new DynamicDaoModule( getClass("com.example.OrangeDao")));
orangeInjector.getInstance(Runner.class);
// final Injector commandLineInjector = Guice.createInjector(new DynamicDaoModule(getClass(args[0])));
// commandLineInjector.getInstance(Runner.class);
}
private static Class getClass(final String className)
{
try
{
return Class.forName(className);
}
catch (final ClassNotFoundException e)
{
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
class DynamicDaoModule extends AbstractModule
{
private final Class<? extends GenericDao<? extends Entity>> daoClass;
public DynamicDaoModule(final Class<? extends GenericDao<? extends Entity>> daoClass)
{
this.daoClass = daoClass;
}
#Override
protected void configure()
{
// bind GenericDao<? extends Entity> to daoClass
final TypeLiteral<GenericDao<? extends Entity>> daoOfEntity = (TypeLiteral) TypeLiteral.get(Types.newParameterizedType(GenericDao.class, Types.subtypeOf(Entity.class)));
bind(daoOfEntity).to(daoClass);
}
}
interface Entity
{
}
class Apple implements Entity
{
}
class Orange implements Entity
{
}
class Runner
{
#Inject
public Runner(final GenericDao<? extends Entity> dao)
{
System.out.println("This runner has an " + dao);
}
}
class GenericDao<T extends Entity>
{
private final Class<? extends Entity> entityClass;
protected GenericDao(final Class<? extends Entity> entityClass)
{
this.entityClass = entityClass;
}
#Override
public String toString()
{
return String.format("%s constructed with entityClass %s", getClass().getSimpleName(), entityClass.getSimpleName());
}
}
class AppleDao extends GenericDao<Apple>
{
#Inject
public AppleDao()
{
super(Apple.class);
}
}
class OrangeDao extends GenericDao<Orange>
{
#Inject
public OrangeDao()
{
super(Orange.class);
}
}
And the output would be
This runner has an AppleDao constructed with entityClass Apple
This runner has an OrangeDao constructed with entityClass Orange
I have changed the example to have entity classes implement an interface, in case they share some functionality that would be useful to Runner or GenericDao. If in fact you don't have such an interface, the technique also works with entity classes like String and Double if you remove the extends Entity upper bounds (e.g. GenericDao<T>).
I also removed the <T> parameter on Runner, as that was providing no benefit due to type erasure. If you were to subclass Runner<T>, then you might have Guice provide AppleRunner extends Runner<Apple> or OrangeRunner extends Runner<Orange>. But the type parameter provides nothing if Runner itself is the only concrete class Guice will be providing.
EDIT Oops, I left the class injections in. They are removed now. Of course, if you have a concrete GenericDao subclass for each entity, then perhaps you don't need to inject the entity classes themselves.
I suppose it's not clear to me whether you can provide concrete GenericDao subclasses for all the entity types ahead of time or not. If not, and you were only using the GenericDao class itself for each different kind of entity class, then you would want to inject concrete entity classes and not concrete DAO classes.
Related
I'm trying to inject instances with generics and i'm getting the following error:
HasOne<ModelClass> cannot be used as a key; It is not fully specified.
I've read elsewhere that safest way to do this is to explicitly name the class to be used in the generic when using the injector to get an instance but i'd like to be a little cleaner. I'm trying to create Relationship objects between Models.
Here is my simplified Model class
public class Model {
#Inject
Injector injector;
public <ModelClass extends Model> HasOne<ModelClass> hasOne(Class<ModelClass> clazz) {
HasOne<ModelClass> hasOne = injector.getInstance(Key.get(new TypeLiteral<HasOne<ModelClass>>() {
}));
hasOne.init(clazz);
return hasOne;
}
}
My HasOne relationship
public class HasOne<T extends Model> {
Class clazz;
public void init(Class<T> clazz){
this.clazz = clazz;
}
#Inject
Injector injector;
public T get(){
return (T) injector.getInstance(clazz);
}
}
Test Model #1
public class TestModel extends Model {
public HasOne<ExampleModel> exampleModel(){
return hasOne(ExampleModel.class);
}
}
Test Model #2
public class ExampleModel extends Model {
}
I get the error when doing this
TestModel testModel = RoboGuice.getInjector(context).getInstance(TestModel.class);
HasOne<ExampleModel> relationship = testModel.exampleModel();
I'm trying to hide away the ugly relationship creation and keep it in the Model class
You cannot use new TypeLiteral<T>() { } if T is a type parameter, it has to be a fully-specified type. Luckily, since you have an instance of Class<ModelClass>, you can do this:
(Key<HasOne<ModelClass>>) Key.get(TypeLiteral.get(Types.newParameterizedType(HasOne.class, clazz)))
You'll get a warning on the cast but it is safe to suppress it.
I have a class with a constructor, e.g.:
#Inject
public ClassTest(ITestInterface testInterface, Class<?> clazz){
...
}
The problem is how do I bind a class to an implementation which can be injected in this constructor and will the ClassTest binding pick the right class?
I want to inject different classes at different point of time. When I attempted to solve it Guice gives an error that it cannot find any suitable constructor on java.lang.Class.
I think you have to use assisted inject extension of Guice.
Basically, you define your ClassTest as it is, but mark 'varying' dependencies as #Assisted:
#Inject
public ClassTest(ITestInterface testInterface, #Assisted Class<?> clazz){
...
}
Then you create a factory interface for ClassTest objects which will accept Class argument and return ClassTests:
public interface ClassTestFactory {
ClassTest create(Class<?> clazz);
}
Then you install special kind of module which will create factories for you:
// Inside your module
install(new FactoryModuleBuilder().build(ClassTestFactory.class));
Then wherever you need ClassTest instances you should inject ClassTestFactory interface instead:
#Inject
YourLogicClass(ClassTestFactory ctFactory) {
this.ctFactory = ctFactory;
}
And finally you use it to create ClassTests for every class object you want:
ClassTest ct1 = ctFactory.create(SomeClass.class);
ClassTest ct2 = ctFactory.create(AnotherClass.class);
But if I were you, I would really reconsider the whole class architecture to avoid the need in such things.
This can be solved even without assisted inject, simply by using a TypeLiteral when creating the binding:
import javax.inject.Inject;
import com.google.inject.AbstractModule;
import com.google.inject.Guice;
import com.google.inject.Injector;
import com.google.inject.Module;
import com.google.inject.TypeLiteral;
public class ClassTest
{
static interface ITestInterface {}
#Inject
public ClassTest(ITestInterface testInterface, Class<?> clazz)
{
System.err.println("testInterface=" + testInterface);
System.err.println("clazz=" + clazz);
}
public static void main(String... argument)
{
ITestInterface testObject = new ITestInterface() {};
Module module = new AbstractModule()
{
#Override
protected void configure()
{
binder().bind(ITestInterface.class).toInstance(testObject);
binder().bind(new TypeLiteral<Class<?>>() {}).toInstance(testObject.getClass());
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}
};
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(module);
injector.getInstance(ClassTest.class);
}
}
The output when running this code is something like:
testInterface=ClassTest$1#3d921e20
clazz=class ClassTest$1
I have to agree with #VladimirMatveev though, that this is a somewhat unusual use case, and that the need for injection of java.lang.Class objects might be indicative of a design flaw. The only seemingly valid case of this type of injection that I've come across is for type checking, where an injected class needs the Class object to check the type of some other object (via Class.isInstance(...)) but it is not desirable to inject an instance (!) of that class (e.g., because it is not a singleton and might spawn all sorts of other undesired object creations). Still, even that scenario is somewhat hokey and might be solvable in a better way.
At the very least, I would use a more specific type argument, like Class<? extends ITestInterface> (which, I suspect, is what's intended by the OP).
To change injected value over time you could use the Provider bindings. And then it could look like this:
The module configuration:
public class SomeModule extends AbstractModule{
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(Class.class).toProvider(SomeProvider.class);
}
}
The provider(not very elegant but may be for a start...):
public class SomeProvider implements Provider<Class<?>>{
private static Class<?> myClazz;
public static void setClass(Class<?> clazz){
myClazz = clazz;
}
#Override
public Class<?> get() {
return myClazz;
}
}
Some different classes:
public class SomeClass{
public int itWorks;
}
public class SomeOtherClass{
public int itWorksGreat;
}
Example client code:
public static void main(String[] args){
SomeProvider.setClass(SomeClass.class);
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new SomeModule());
printFields(injector.getInstance(Class.class));
SomeProvider.setClass(SomeOtherClass.class);
printFields(injector.getInstance(Class.class));
}
private static void printFields(Class clazz) {
Field[] declaredFields = clazz.getDeclaredFields();
for(Field field : declaredFields){
System.out.println(field.getName());
}
}
And finally the result:
itWorks
itWorksGreat
I trying to build a simple lib for persistence with guice persist and some other things.
I already have a AbstractDao<T>, that I can easily extend and bind the concrete implementation like a boss.
But, I want a kind of GenericDao, like this:
public abstract class GenericDao<T extends Bean> {
#Inject
private Provider<EntityManager> emp;
protected EntityManager em() {
return emp.get();
}
public AbstractDao() {
}
protected abstract Class<T> clazz();
// ....
And if I will have just the CRUD (implemented in abstract dao) in for some bean, I want to inject GenericDao<SomeBean> like a boss.
So, I started to try some hacks, and get the following:
public abstract class AbstractPersistentModule extends AbstractModule {
protected <T extends Bean> LinkedBindingBuilder<T> bindGenericDao(final Class<T> clazz) {
return bind(
new TypeLiteral<GenericDao<T>>(){}
)./* what the hell can I do here? */;
}
}
If I can make it work, I'll be able to do a simple:
bindGenericDao(Pessoa.class);
Someone know a way to do that?
See this post for a working implementation.
With a lot of hacks, I finally managed it to work. Please, take a look and tell me what you think: https://github.com/namekusei/persistence/blob/master/src/main/java/com/github/namekusei/inject/AbstractPersistentModule.java
I remember that Weld is another way to do it, you can use the #InjectionPoint's to say the type of injected element..
class Foo {
#Inject
private GenericDAO<Employee> dao;
//...
}
..
#Produces
public GenericDAO<T> createDaoInstances(InjectionPoint type){
return new GenericDAO(type.getMember().getSomeThing());
}
public GenericDAO<T>{
//..
public GenericDAO<T>(EntityManager em){
//...
}
}
I think this is a more interesting, just because you can better separate the binding between components and layers.
When I try to mock a Dao using Jukito I get the following exception:
java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.Class cannot be cast to java.lang.reflect.ParameterizedType
at org.jukito.JukitoModule.addKeyDependency(JukitoModule.java:338)
at org.jukito.JukitoModule.addInjectionPointDependencies(JukitoModule.java:330)
at org.jukito.JukitoModule.addDependencies(JukitoModule.java:313)
The object I try to mock is a ConcreteDao.
public class ConcreteDao extends AbstractDao<MyDomain> {
}
public abstract class AbstractDao<T extends DatastoreObject> {
}
I read several posts on SO about this binding generics but I can't figure out a way to use TypeLiteral for my binding.
This is what I tried:
bind(new TypeLiteral<AbstractDao<MyDomain>>(){}).to(ConcreteDao.class);
You need to bind like this:
bind(new TypeLiteral<AbstractDao<MyDomain>>(){}).to(new TypeLiteral<ConcreteDao<MyDomain>>(){});
This is how you can retrieve the generic class:
class AbstractDao {
protected final Class<T> clazz;
#Inject
public AbstractDao(TypeLiteral<T> type) {
clazz = (Class<T>) type.getRawType();
}
}
Subclasses of AbstractDao will need to pass entity specific TypeLiterals to the parent class (AbstractDao):
class ConcreteDao extends AbstractDao<MyDomain> {
#Inject
public ConcreteDao(TypeLiteral<MyDomain> type) {
super(type);
}
}
Note that you can make your AbstractDao class non-abstract and implement basic CRUD operations, so that you can use it without the need to extend AbstractDao for each entity. You will just need a binding for each entity like this:
bind(new TypeLiteral<GenericDao<User>>(){}).in(Scopes.SINGLETON);
See my blog-post for more information.
I am working on app where I have to write custom validation on some xmlbean oject, basically to see so and so fields with proper values exist or not. Now those objects are generated from diff schema. I am using validation provided by xmlbeans against the schema but there are some more business validation needs to be done for these objects before it is being processed further.
Can somebody suggest any design pattern for this use case?
Thanks
Define your own validator interface:
interface Validator <T extends XmlBean> {
boolean validate(T bean);
}
Implement it for each classyou are dealing with, you can provide a factory class to get the validator for each bean class by implementing the following interface:
interface IValidatorFactory {
public <T extends XmlBean> Validator<T> getValidator(Class<T> clazz);
}
class ValidatorFactory implements IValidatorFactory {
private final Map<Class<? extends XmlBean>, Validator<? extends XmlBean>> map =
new HashMap<Class<? extends XmlBean>, Validator<? extends XmlBean>>();
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public <T extends XmlBean> Validator<T> getValidator(Class<T> clazz) {
return (Validator<T>)map.get(clazz);
}
public <T extends XmlBean> void registerValidator(Class<T> clazz, Validator<T> validator) {
map.put(clazz, validator);
}
}
You could potentially add your own custom pre- and post-set hooks to your generated XmlBeans classes. To add add the hooks you need to create an .xsdconfig file and provide a some preSet() and postSet() static methods that can be called.
For an example, see:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-xmlbeanse/?ca=dgr-eclipse-1
And also:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlbeans/trunk/test/cases/xbean/extensions/prePostFeature/readOnlyBean/po.xsdconfig?revision=HEAD&view=markup
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlbeans/trunk/test/src/xmlobject/extensions/prePostFeature/readOnlyBean/existing/FooHandler.java?revision=HEAD&view=markup