I've been building a GWT 1.7 + GAE application using the eclipse plugin.
The system constants are loaded into a MyConstants.properties file that is loaded by the singleton MyConstants class extending the ...gwt.i18n.client.Constants class.
I would like for MyConstants to load one of several files containing settings like
MyConstants-local.properties
MyConstants-alpha.properties
MyConstants-beta.properties
MyConstants-prod.properties
I've found several references to Guice's Enum Stage but this does not seem to be supported by gin. Besides, it only handles dev/prod and I definitely need a local/beta/prod solution.
Is there a way to do this using a command line arg or some other instance defined runtime parameter that will work when loaded onto GAE?
On the GAE server side, I was able to distinguish my dev environment from any deployed production environment with these bits of code.
Create one interface and two class files.
public interface MyConstants {
public String myConstant();
}
public class MyConstantsDev implements MyConstants {
public String myConstant() { return "xyzzy-dev"; };
}
public class MyConstantsProd implements MyConstants {
public String myConstant() { return "xyzzy-prod"; };
}
Define a bit of Guice magic binding using the "user.dir" env var. The last directory within the user.dir path is either the unique Google App Engine Application Identifier or your root project development directory. Once you know this, you can determine which set of constants to use.
public class MyServerModule extends com.google.inject.AbstractModule {
String appIdentifier = new File( System.getProperty("user.dir") ).getName();
if ( appIdentifier.equals("trunk") ) {
// Load MyConstants-dev.properties
bind( MyConstants.class ).to( MyConstantsDev.class ).in(Singleton.class);
} else {
// Load MyConstants-prod.properties
bind( MyConstants.class ).to( MyConstantsProd.class ).in(Singleton.class);
}
}
This allows me to inject dev/prod constants into classes like this:
public class MyDomainClass {
#Inject
public MyDomainClass( Logger logger, MyConstants const ) {
logger.debug( const.myConstant() );
};
}
You should use the especially made type-safe interface to work this out...
if (SystemProperty.environment.value() == SystemProperty.Environment.Value.Production)
{
//It's production.
}
else
{
//It's Dev - and (SystemProperty.environment.value() == SystemProperty.Environment.Value.Development)
}
One thing that's different between the development and deployed environment is the SERVER_SOFTWARE environment variable:
if (System.getenv("SERVER_SOFTWARE").startsWith("Dev")) {
// Load MyConstants-dev.properties
} else {
// Load MyConstants-prod.properties
}
Maybe you can pick which Guice module to load based off of that.
On the above answer for getting the GAE SERVER_SOFTWARE variable; The SERVER_SOFTWARE environment Variable is a CGI default therefore its a web server setting and isn't accessible through the System environment vars but is available from the ServletContext.
Here's the code that should get you the value your needing (No idea why its ServerInfo and not ServerSoftware...):
if (getServletContext().getServerInfo().startsWith("Dev")) {
// Load MyConstants-dev.properties
} else {
// Load MyConstants-prod.properties
}
Related
I would like to create a proper properties management strategy in a java webapp that relays on google guice as a DI framework.
I would like to have a mechanism answering the following 3 requirements:
I would like to be able to inject properties using guice (#Named)
I would like to be able to access properties in a static way
The mechanism should support prioritization of properties, meaning that a property can be wrapped in the deployed war with a certain value but it can also be redundant in the target system level or local file system (of the target machine I deploy on), in such a case the value in the war will be overridden by the value that exists in the target machine.
I believe this is a standard requirement. Now, using guice standard binder I can easily get the first requirement but not the other two. To get the other two I created my own class that does the following:
Wraps and exposes the binding methods of guice (those that binds properties) For example:
public static void bindString(AnnotatedBindingBuilder<String> binder, String property, String defaultValue) {
binder.annotatedWith(Names.named(property)).toInstance(getProperty(property, defaultValue));
}
Where the getProperty method knows how to handle my properties (get the value from the war or system level) and exposes the properties statically as well.
So basically as long as I'm using this utility that I created for properties bindings I'm good, it covers all my requirements but once I use the standard guice bindings I'm losing the second and third requirement.
Is there a way to override guice bindings and get all those 3 requirements?
Once I had the same challange in a spring based app and was pretty easy. I implemented ApplicationContextInitializer with the following method:
#Override
public void initialize(ConfigurableWebApplicationContext ctx) {
PropertySource<Map<String, Object>> localProps = null;
try {
localProps = new ResourcePropertySource(new ClassPathResource(LOCAL_PROPERTIES_FILE_NAME));
} catch (IOException e) {
LOG.fatal("Could not load local properties from classpath " + LOCAL_PROPERTIES_FILE_NAME);
return;
}
LOG.info("Loaded configuration from classpath local file " + LOCAL_PROPERTIES_FILE_NAME);
ctx.getEnvironment().getPropertySources().addFirst(localProps);
}
so this gave me a way to add local properties with highest priority to my Environment. In case of overlap with war properties the local ones had higher priority. In addition I exposed my Environment statically so I has static access to my properties (for services that are not managed by the container, legacy mostly).
How can I achieve this with guice?
Unfortunately, I don't think that you are going to find anything that gives you a truly clean and satisfying implementation. Especially, I don't think that you will find anything that gives you exactly what you want without implementing at least portions of it yourself.
If I had those needs, I would make sure that my injector is created in a central InjectorFactory. If you require a large number of parameters from outside to create your injector, I would simply create it once at the very beginning of my application and then cache the injector into a static final field. This would make it available to a static method. I would bind my "fall-back" property loading to an explicit provider. That way, instead of using the standard Names.bindProperties(...) method, I would bind it directly to a Provider. This provider then implements the logic that is necessary to perform the fallback or to merge multiple property files. Having the injector cached to a static field means that I can call a static method to access properties from a global-context outside of my injected classes.
Using your own provider seems initially unpleasant, but can provide some additional benefits. For starters, you can implement your fallback strategy exactly how you want. Additionally, you can add additional behaviors such as auto-reloading your property files, etc (not shown in my code sample).
public class InjectorFactory {
private static Injector injector = null;
public static synchronized Injector getOrCreateInjector() {
if(injector == null) {
injector = Guice.createInjector(new AbstractModule() {
#Override
protected void configure() {
Properties properties1 = createProperties("file1.properties");
Properties properties2 = createProperties("file2.properties");
Set<Object> propertyNames = new HashSet<Object>();
propertyNames.addAll(properties1.keySet());
propertyNames.addAll(properties2.keySet());
for (Object object : propertyNames) {
String propertyName = (String) object;
bind(String.class).annotatedWith(Names.named(propertyName)).toProvider(new StringProvider(properties1, properties2, propertyName));
}
}
private Properties createProperties(String propertyFileName) {
try {
InputStream stream = InjectorFactory.class.getResourceAsStream(propertyFileName);
try {
Properties properties = new Properties();
properties.load(stream);
return properties;
} finally {
stream.close();
}
} catch (IOException exception) {
throw new RuntimeException("Could not load properties file");
}
}
});
}
return injector;
}
public static String getProperty(String propertyName) {
return getOrCreateInjector().getInstance(Key.get(String.class, Names.named(propertyName)));
}
}
Given the above code and file1.properties:
property1=Property1Value
property2=Property2Value
And file.properties:
property2=IncorrectProperty2Value
property3=Property3Value
with the provider
public class StringProvider implements Provider<String> {
private Properties properties1;
private Properties properties2;
private String propertyName;
public StringProvider(Properties properties1, Properties properties2,
String propertyName) {
this.properties1 = properties1;
this.properties2 = properties2;
this.propertyName = propertyName;
}
public String get() {
if(properties1.containsKey(propertyName)) {
return properties1.getProperty(propertyName);
}
return properties2.getProperty(propertyName);
}
}
The following usage:
public class InjectorFactoryTest {
public static void main(String ... parameters) {
System.out.println(InjectorFactory.getProperty("property1"));
System.out.println(InjectorFactory.getProperty("property2"));
System.out.println(InjectorFactory.getProperty("property3"));
}
}
Outputs:
Property1Value
Property2Value
Property3Value
i am going to continue to express my seemingly endless missunderstanding in EJBs:
I am using JBoss 8 (Wildfly 8.1) as my Applicationserver.
I am currently building a workaround for the Problem, that Inpustreams cannot be passed to remote EJB via RMI (which makes absolute sense once i thought about it).
I i must not replace the existing Resources Interface (writing an Inpustream to a File) I build following 3 Projects as a solution:
Interfaces (library included in both EARs):
com.package.ejb
public interface StorageAdapter extends Serializable{
String store(Inpustream is); (//returns an id
Inputstream load(String id);
}
public interface StorageAdapterProvider{
StorageAdapter provide();
}
Persistence-EAR
com.package.impl
public class FileSystemStorageAdapter implements com.package.ejb.Storageadapter {
//implementation, writing to locally mounted path in filesystem...
}
com.package.impl
#Singleton
#Remote(com.package.ejb.StorageAdapterProvider.class)
public class StorageAdapterProviderBean implements com.package.ejb.StorageadapterProvider {
public StorageAdapter provide() {
return new FileSystemStorageAdapter();
}
}
Business-EAR
com.package.business
public class StorageProvider {
#EJB(looklup = "java:global/Persistence-EAR/StorageAdapterProviderBean!com.package.ejb.StorageAdapterProvider"
private StorageAdapterProvider provider;
#Produces
public StorageAdapter getStorageAdapter() {
return provider.provide();
}
}
I then use #Inject StorageAdapter storageAdapter; to get an instance of the Storageadapter-implementation.
Business-EAR/Storageprovider then throws a ClassCastException, telling me that com.package.impl.FileSystemStorageAdapter cannot be cast to com.package.ejb.StorageAdapter
i added some logging to the EJB
com.package.impl
#Singleton
#Remote(com.package.ejb.StorageAdapterProvider.class)
public class StorageAdapterProviderBean implements com.package.ejb.StorageadapterProvider {
public StorageAdapter provide() {
StroageAdapter ret = new FileSystemStorageAdapter();
logger.info("EJB: RETURNING Stortage adapter");
logger.info(" is of type:"+ret.getClass().getName());
logger.info(" is Storageadapter: "+ (ret instanceof StorageAdapter));
logger.info(" is FileSystemStorageAdapter: "+ (ret instanceof FileSystemStorageAdapter));
return ret;
}
}
and it correctly prints:
EJB: RETURNING Stortage adapter
is of type:com.package.impl.FileSystemStorageAdapter
is Storageadapter: true
is FileSystemStorageAdapter: true
Further investigation shows, that the Exception is thrown while the container is Wrapping the "ret" Object, as i also get the Exeption if i chnage the #Provides implementation to:
Object o = provider.provide();
Is it impossible to return an Interface type from an EJB?
What am i missing?
Does Business-EJB need to know the implementing Classes? - Wouldn't a ClassNotFound Exception make more sense in this case?
Thanks in advance!
EDIT:
My Packaging looks as follows:
Persistence.ear
-lib/Interfaces.jar
-StorageAdapter
-Storageprovider
-persistence_ejb.jar
-FileSystemStorageAdapter
-StorageAdapterProviderBean
Business.ear
-lib/Interfaces.jar
-StorageAdapter
-Storageprovider
-business_ejb.jar
-StorageProvider
-web.war
-Jaxrsres
The Jaxrsres is the one having a Storageadapter Injected via #Inject
I am deploying these 2 wars to a JBoss Wildlfly 8.1 Server.
I did not make any relevant changes to the configuration - so all the other Point you requested are defaults as far as I understand.
EDIT2:
It somewhat defeats the purpose, but it works if i add the Persistence.ear/persistence_ejb.jar to the libraries of Business.ear.
Business.ear
-lib
-Interfaces.jar
-StorageAdapter
-Storageprovider
-persistence_ejb.jar
-FileSystemStorageAdapter
-StorageAdapterProviderBean
-business_ejb.jar
-StorageProvider
-web.war
-Jaxrsres
This is obviously not what I want though :/
The main Point is, i want to be able to redeploy Persistence.ear with, say, "DatabaseStorageAdapter", without touching business.ear.
The "Dream" is to Provide the Storageadapter as an EJB Directly - but as the Interface is fixed and needs an InputStream, this cannot be done.
I have an application which relies on Properties configuration to determine whether to mix in various components or not.
For example, the configuration has boolean flags like "componentX.enabled" etc which determine whether these components should be active or not.
Currently I am using these flags in my provider methods like so:
#Provides
#Singleton
#Nullable
public ComponentX provideComponentX(Properties props) {
if (props.isComponentXEnabled()) {
return new ComponentX();
} else {
return null;
}
}
#Provides
#Singleton
public Set<Component> provideComponentSet(
#Nullable ComponentX compX,
ComponentY compY,
ComponentZ compZ
) {
Set<Component> comps = new HashSet<>();
if (compX != null) {
comps.add(compX);
}
comps.add(compY);
comps.add(compZ);
return comps;
}
This approach seems a little clunky (it relies on possible injecting null)- but is there a better way?
The only other way I can think of doing it is by using a parent injector to obtain the application Properties into my module, and then using the set Multibinder.
Then use the create child injector with the new module to complete the bootstrap process.
public class Module extends AbstractModule {
Properties props;
public Module(Properties props) {
this.props = props;
}
public void configure() {
Multibinder<Component> compBinder = Multibinder.newSetBinder(binder(), Component.class);
if (props.isComponentXEnabled()) {
compBinder.addBinding().to(ComponentX.class);
}
compBinder.addBinding().to(ComponentY.class);
compBinder.addBinding().to(ComponentZ.class);
}
}
This also seems a little clunky because it requires the use of a child injector etc.
Again, is there a better way?
Maybe I could use Netflix's Governator (https://github.com/Netflix/governator/wiki/Configuration-Mapping) to inject Configuration values into my module (not sure if that is possible or not)?
How do other people approach this problem?
The applications I've been working with recently have a properties file (or other configuration) that is used to decide which parts of the application are relevant. Our typical approach is parse those properties immediately (just to a Properties object) and construct the application module(s) from that, and they will then conditionally include other modules based on the values specified.
In a couple of places, this has grown into an "init parameters" set, with an enumeration of possible parameters:
enum InitParam {
PricesQueue("prices.queue")
}
Each enum instance is related to a property key and there is a method to get a basic string value for each parameter from Properties:
boolean presentIn(Properties props) { return props.containsKey(propertyKey); }
String valueIn(Properties props) { return props.getProperty(propertyKey); }
So this can be used like so:
public AppModule extends AbstractModule {
private final Properties config;
protected void configure() {
if (InitParam.PricesQueue.presentIn(config)) {
install(new PricesQueueConsumerModule(config));
}
}
}
Additionally, there is a module to bind all the values in the config properties to String, Optional<String> etc, allowing:
#Inject
public PricesQueueConsumer(#FromInitParam(InitParam.PricesQueue) String queueName) {
}
This will trap the queue consumer being referenced when the configuration isn't available (the module won't bind a string if the value isn't present in the config file) while still allowing the behaviour for when the value isn't present to be deferred to later (by injecting Optional<String> instead)
So this is somewhat similar to your second approach, except that I'd not considered the using-Guice-to-inject-Guice-modules approach, which seems a bit convoluted. Although probably it's essentially the same. Maybe rather than a parent/child injector you could simply create a "bootstrapping" injector to build your top-level application module, and then use that to build a completely separate injector?
I am trying to put together a basic SPI-based registry of Handlers, which I lookup from a HandlerRegistry. When I use the ServiceLoader.load(Handler.class) to initialize the providers, and then iterate the list to lazily load them, I am not seeing any instances of the class. Keeping this as simple as possible, my HandlerRegistry class is:
public class HandlerRegistry
{
private static HandlerRegistry registry;
private ServiceLoader<Handler> handlerLoader;
private HandlerRegistry()
{
handlerLoader = ServiceLoader.load(Handler.class);
}
public static synchronized HandlerRegistry getRegistry()
{
if (registry == null) {
registry = new HandlerRegistry();
registry.init();
}
return registry;
}
private void init()
{
System.out.println("HandlerRegistry.init()");
}
public Handler lookup(String item)
{
System.out.println("lookup("+item+")");
try {
Iterator<Handler> it = handlerLoader.iterator();
while (it.hasNext()) {
Handler handler = it.next();
System.out.println("found handler "+handler);
}
}
catch (ServiceConfigurationError err) {
err.printStackTrace();
}
return null;
}
}
I have a com.example.handler.Handler interface (empty for now for simplicity), and a com.example.handler.handlers.DummyHandler class which implements that interface. I have created a file in my jar called META-INF/services/com.example.handler.Handler, which contains the single line
com.example.handler.handlers.DummyHandler
according to the javadoc. My unit test simply calls the lookup() method to verify looking up the handler for an item. Of course there will eventulaly need to be a check of some kind to see if this is the right handler for this item, but at this point I am not even seeing my DummyHandler class get loaded by the registry. Am I doing something wrong here?
Thanks!
The answer appears to be in the sensitivity to exactly how this is configured. I had been placing my provider name resource file (the one named com.example.handler.Handler) directly in the top level project directory, i.e., /resources/META-INF/services/com.example.handler.Handler. I had configured my build.gradle to pull the file out and put it into the jar:
jar { from('resources') { include 'META-INF/services/*.*' } }
When I inspected the jar file, the file was there, right where I expected it to be, so I thought all was well. On a kick, I happened to move the resources folder from down under src/main, and presto! it works. I inspected the jar file and it appears identical to one built the previous way, but for some reason this one works. I will update further if I can determine a difference, but at least my test case works now.
With GWT you have stuff like this:
public interface LoginConstants extends Constants {
#DefaultStringValue("Wellcome to my super app")
#Key("appDescription")
String appDescription();
#DefaultStringValue("Ok")
#Key("okButtonLabel")
String okButtonLabel();
}
Then you can use from your classes doing GWT.create(LoginConstant.class), in this way the interface is backed by dynamic implementation that, when I call loginConstants.appDescription() returns the value contained from a property file using the #Key annotation to reference the key in the property file. If the property file misses the property, then de #DefaultStringValue is returned. This is used for internationalization, but can possibly work also for configuration.
But with GWT, this is meant to be used on the client side (ie. translated to JavaScript), and for i18n, not for configuration.
But, I find this idea very convenient also for configuration handling.
I wonder if somebody knows a framework to do a similar thing on the server side, without necessarily bind your code to GWT. ie. if there is any library that implements this kind of logic specifically designed for the configuration handling. I am not aware of anything like this.
Reference to the feature in GWT: https://developers.google.com/web-toolkit/doc/latest/DevGuideI18nConstants
I implemented my own solution to the question:
BASIC USAGE
The approach used by OWNER APIs, is to define a Java interface
associated to a properties file.
Suppose your properties file is defined as ServerConfig.properties:
port=80
hostname=foobar.com
maxThreads=100
To access this property you need to define a convenient Java interface
in ServerConfig.java:
public interface ServerConfig extends Config {
int port();
String hostname();
int maxThreads();
}
We'll call this interface the Properties Mapping Interface or just
Mapping Interface since its goal is to map Properties into an easy to
use a piece of code.
Then, you can use it from inside your code:
public class MyApp {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ServerConfig cfg = ConfigFactory.create(ServerConfig.class);
System.out.println("Server " + cfg.hostname() + ":" + cfg.port() +
" will run " + cfg.maxThreads());
}
}
But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Continue reading here: Basic usage || Website || Github
I still have a couple of features in mind, but the current implementation goes a little forward than the basic functionalities described in the questions.
I need to add samples and documentation.
I loved the idea so much that I quickly assembled some code using Java Dynamic proxies.
So basically you create an interface with relevant methods and annotate them with #Key, #DefaultStringValue annotations.
Below is the sample Java code:
Main.java
package net.viralpatel;
import net.viralpatel.annotations.DefaultStringValue;
import net.viralpatel.annotations.Key;
interface LoginConstants extends Constants {
#DefaultStringValue("Wellcome to my super app")
#Key("appDescription")
String appDescription();
#DefaultStringValue("Ok")
#Key("okButtonLabel")
String okButtonLabel();
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
LoginConstants constants = DynamicProperty.create(LoginConstants.class);
System.out.println(constants.appDescription());
System.out.println(constants.okButtonLabel());
}
}
Also the property file in background that we load is
config.property
okButtonLabel=This is OK
Just execute the Main java class, following output will be displayed:
Output:
Wellcome to my super app
This is OK
Here is the rest of code: http://viralpatel.net/blogs/dynamic-property-loader-using-java-dynamic-proxy-pattern/
You could mimic that with spring (but I'm not sure it's worth it):
#Component
public class SomeBean {
#Value("${appDescription:Wellcome to my super app}")
private String appDescription;
#Value("${okButtonLabel:Ok}")
private String okButtonLabel;
// accessors
}
with a PropertyPlaceHolderConfigurer.
I would like to consider the CDI as the following :-
The Qualifier
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({
ElementType.METHOD,
ElementType.FIELD,
ElementType.PARAMETER,
ElementType.TYPE
})
#Documented
public #interface MessageTemplate {
#Nonbinding
String baseName();
#Nonbinding
Locale locale() default Locale.ENGLISH;
#Nonbinding
String key();
}
The Producer
public class CustomizedProducer {
#Produces
#MessageTemplate(baseName = "",
key = "")
public String createMessageTemplate(final InjectionPoint ip) {
MessageTemplate configure = null;
ResourceBundle bundle = null;
try{
configure = ip.getAnnotated().getAnnotation(MessageTemplate.class);
bundle = ResourceBundle.getBundle(configure.baseName(),
configure.locale());
return bundle.getString(configure.key());
} finally{
configure = null;
bundle = null;
}
}
}
The Service Configure
public class MyServiceConfigure {
#Inject
#MessageTemplate(baseName = "com.my.domain.MyProp",
key = "appDescription")
private String appDescription;
#Inject
#MessageTemplate(baseName = "com.my.domain.MyProp",
key = "okButtonLabel")
private String okButtonLabel;
//Getter
}
The working class
public class MyService {
#Inject
private MyServiceConfigure configure;
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println(configure.getAppDescription());
System.out.println(configure.getOkButtonLabel());
}
}
Regarding to the coding above you may use the java.util.Properties instead of the java.util.ResourceBundle and provide the default member to the Qualifier as well.
If you are running these under the JavaEE 6, the CDI is already enable for you. Just put the empty beans.xml to the META-INF or WEB-INF. If you are running under the Java SE you may need a bit further work as mentioned at the Weld web site and its documentation.
I'm using the CDI as a main part of my current production project and it works quite well.
EDITED:-
The good point to use the CDI is the Scope, we may produce the #MessageTemplate as the #ApplicationScope,#SessionScoped, #RequestScoped, #ConversationScoped or the pseudo-scope as #Singleton or #Depenendent
If you annotate the MyServiceConfigure as #Named, it is ready to use at the JSF as well.