I have a Repository interface that has two implementations. One reads data from a locally stored CSV file while the other reads from an Amazon Dynamo DB. I would like to be able to switch between which implementation I'm using based on an application property or custom build profile. I would normally use a Factory to retrieve the correct class at runtime, but I would like to do this with injection if possible.
I found a similar question using Spring boot but couldn't find an equivalent that would work in Quarkus Spring choose bean implementation at runtime
I also tried implementing a Configuration class similar to what is found in the docs here but again didn't have much luck. https://quarkus.io/guides/cdi-reference#default_beans
It feels like I'm missing something obvious so any pointers would be much appreciated.
Here is a simple example of my classes:
#ApplicationScoped
public class ExampleService {
#Inject
ExampleRepository repository;
public List<Data> retrieveData() {
return repository.retrieveData();
}
}
public interface ExampleRepository {
List<Data> retrieveData();
}
#ApplicationScoped
public class DynamoRepository implements ExampleRepository {
#Override
public List<Data> retrieveData() {
//Get Data from DynamoDb
}
}
#ApplicationScoped
public class CsvRepository implements ExampleRepository {
#Inject
CsvBeanHandler csvBeanHandler;
#Inject
LocalFileReader fileReader;
#Override
public List<Data> retrieveData() {
// Get data from CSV
}
}
I currently also have the following in my application.yml:
com:
example:
application:
storage-type: 'CSV' # OR AMAZON_DYNAMO_DB
It looks like they've added this directly to the documentation:
https://quarkus.io/guides/cdi-reference#declaratively-choose-beans-that-can-be-obtained-by-programmatic-lookup
I feel a bit guilty pasting this much, but it's the SO way.
I can add that it is NOT like a Guice 'binding'; BOTH classes will be instantiated, but only one will be injected. Also unlike Guice, you cannot inject the interface (or I did it wrong) - you have to do what's shown below, with Instance.
Personally I just use constructor injection and then drop the value of the Instance wrapper into a final field, so I'm not crying about the extra step. I do miss the power and explicit bindings possible with Modules ala Guice, but the simplicity here has its own value.
5.16. Declaratively Choose Beans That Can Be Obtained by Programmatic Lookup
It is sometimes useful to narrow down the set of beans that can be
obtained by programmatic lookup via javax.enterprise.inject.Instance.
Typically, a user needs to choose the appropriate implementation of an
interface based on a runtime configuration property.
Imagine that we have two beans implementing the interface
org.acme.Service. You can’t inject the org.acme.Service directly
unless your implementations declare a CDI qualifier. However, you can
inject the Instance instead, then iterate over all
implementations and choose the correct one manually. Alternatively,
you can use the #LookupIfProperty and #LookupUnlessProperty
annotations. #LookupIfProperty indicates that a bean should only be
obtained if a runtime configuration property matches the provided
value. #LookupUnlessProperty, on the other hand, indicates that a bean
should only be obtained if a runtime configuration property does not
match the provided value.
#LookupIfProperty Example
interface Service {
String name();
}
#LookupIfProperty(name = "service.foo.enabled", stringValue = "true")
#ApplicationScoped
class ServiceFoo implements Service {
public String name() {
return "foo";
}
}
#ApplicationScoped
class ServiceBar implements Service {
public String name() {
return "bar";
}
}
#ApplicationScoped
class Client {
#Inject
Instance<Service> service;
void printServiceName() {
// This will print "bar" if the property "service.foo.enabled" is NOT set to "true"
// If "service.foo.enabled" is set to "true" then service.get() would result in an AmbiguousResolutionException
System.out.println(service.get().name());
}
}
If your request is to bind at startup time the right implementation based on a configuration property, I suppose your problem may be resolved used #Produces annotation:
public class ExampleRepositoryFactory {
#Config("storage-type")
String storageType;
#Produces
public ExampleRepository dynamoInstance() {
return storageType == "CSV" ? new CsvRepository() : new DynamoRepository();
}
}
Related
AFAICT, there's not much difference between using cucumber-glue scope and instantiating member variables in step classes other than where the instantiation code resides.
For example, using cucumber-glue scope:
#Configuration
public class MyConfiguration {
#Bean
#Scope("cucumber-glue")
public MyContext myContext() {
return new MyContext();
}
}
#SpringBootTest
public class MySteps {
#Autowired
private MyContext myContext;
}
versus member variables:
#SpringBootTest
public class MySteps {
private final MyContext myContext = new MyContext();
}
Are there other differences I'm missing?
When you have more then one one definition file you'll want to share some information between them. You can do this by writing to the same component.
However all regular components are singleton scoped and survive between Scenarios. This makes them unsuitable for sharing test state. It might interfere with the next scenario. Fortunately cucumber-glue scoped components (including step definitions) are recycled between scenarios. This ensures your glue code will will always be fresh.
I am trying to use JAXB in an Eclipse project. View widgets are bound to model attributes with java.beans.PropertyChangeSupport. This works fine. I want to also bind model attributes to a persistent XML representation on disk with JAXB. I can marshal important state to XML and can unmarshal that back into a pojo/bean thing at runtime but am not sure how best to proceed.
The bean setters bound to my view widgets need to firePropertyChange() but XJC generates only simple setters, this.value = value.
XJC properties are protected, so it looks like I could override its setters to firePropertyChange(), but I don't know how my overriding subclass could have its unmarshaled superclass magically change state at runtime (like when user requests report for different year which is when I would unmarshal a different XML file).
Is there an example or pattern for doing this? Surely it is not new. Many thanks. -d
#Adam Thanks! I grokked a workable solution with this:
public class MyBean extends JaxBean {
public JaxBean getJaxBean() {
return this;
}
public void setJaxBean(JaxBean jaxBean) {
super.setThis(jaxBean.getThis());
super.setThat(jaxBean.getThat());
// etc...
}
public MyBean() {
// etc...
}
}
I think my confusion was thinking the unmarshalled bean would somehow magically replace my working instance. The solution above requires additional text but it works and the use of JaxBean's dumb setters avoids firing events unnecessarily when loading a new XML.
Your solution, annotating MyBean with JAXB and using schemagen, sounds even better. I will try that next go around. These are very nice technologies. -d
I mentioned another approach to your application in my comment.
It's what we use in our RCP application. Except that we marshall/unmarshall through network thus we use JAXWS and not just JAXB.
I'm somewhat experienced with this kind of stack, so here's a kick-starter for you:
/**
* Your UI POJO-s should extend this class.
*/
public abstract class UIModel<T extends UIModel> {
protected final PropertyChangeSupport propertyChangeSupport = new PropertyChangeSupport(this);
/**
* This comes handy at times
*/
public void afterUnmarshal(Unmarshaller unmarshaller, Object parent) {
//....
}
/**
* And this too, trust me.
*/
public void deepCopy(final T of) {
removePropertyChangeListener(propertyChangeListener);
//It's from Spring Framework but you can write your own. Spring is a fat-ass payload for a Java-SE application.
BeanUtils.copyProperties(of, this, IGNORED_ON_CLIENT);
addPropertyChangeListener(propertyChangeListener);
}
}
public void addPropertyChangeListener(String propertyName, PropertyChangeListener listener) {
propertyChangeSupport.addPropertyChangeListener(propertyName, listener);
}
public void removePropertyChangeListener(PropertyChangeListener listener) {
propertyChangeSupport.removePropertyChangeListener(listener);
}
}
/**
* Example of a UI POJO.
*/
public class Car extends UIModel<Car> {
private String make;
private int numberOfWheels;
//... etc.
/**
* Example of a setter
*/
public void setMake(String make) {
propertyChangeSupport.firePropertyChange("make", this.make, this.make = make);
}
public String getMake() {
return make;
}
//... etc.
}
I don't know how often your Schema-definition changes but there's a pattern supporting this;
/**
* New application (compiled with the class below) can open a file saved by the old application.
*/
public class Car2 extends Car {
private String fuelType; // Example of a new field
public void setFuelType(String fuelType) {
propertyChangeSupport.firePropertyChange("fuelType", this.fuelType, this.fuelType = fuelType);
}
//... etc.
}
This way the old application can open XML-outputs of the new. Dropping a field from such a class's source code will result in a RuntimeException as JAXB is still looking for it.
If you're clients are always up-to-date then you should not care about this at all.
When tackling with Java collections and subclassing excessively you will run into JAXB problems which you can solve by Googling #XmlRootElement and #XmlSeeAlso annotations.
Comments don't format, trying "answer". Need to do the stackoverflow tour. Continuing,
Thanks, Adam, I will bookmark these for future reference. They look similar to my example, the pattern is (unmarshal New, be quiet, copy New to Old, be noisy). I like the mind-bending recursion,
class UIModel<T extends UIModel>
class Car extends UIModel<Car>
and assume you've tested it compiles. ;)
Regards, -d.
I am working on a project with jsf 2.2 on the web side and spring 4 on the business side. I have a web filter which receives a parameter from the request url. From this parameter I have to connect to a database. There are cases where there are different databases possible, so depending on the parameter I have to initiate a different database connection. The web filter looks like this:
#Component
public final class SecurityFilter implements Filter
{
#Autowired
private CommonEao commonEao;
#Override
public void doFilter(ServletRequest request, ServletResponse response,
FilterChain chain) throws IOException, ServletException
{
HttpServletRequest req = (HttpServletRequest)request;
String instance = req.getParameter("instance");
//I would like to have something here like:
// springContext.addParameter("instance", instance);
String company = req.getParameter("company");
commonEao.getConfiguration(company);
... Do stuff
}
}
How does it works? The commonEao contains methods to make queries to the database (JPA/Eclipselink...). At initialization, no entityManager is present in commonEao since it is injected in SecurityFilter before the doFilter is executed when an url is requested. After the url is requested, the instance of the database to use is known through the 'instance' request parameter.
When the method commonEao.getConfiguration(company) is invoked, the first thing that should happen is to create an entity Manager:
#Repository
public final class CommonEao extends AbstractEao
{
public final void getConfiguration(final String company)
{
if (entityManager == null)
{
//I would like to have something here like:
// String instance = springContext.getParameter("instance");
createEntityManager(instance);
}
else ...
}
}
As you can see, when the first time the url is requested, no entityManager exists and it needs to be created based on the instance name provided by the request. Based on the instance name the properties files containing database connection parameters will be used the call the Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory functionality... etc etc... :)
What is the idea? The idea that I had, as you can see in my comments, is to put a parameter in some global context/container that is available for all Spring beans. This idea comes from the JSF world, where you can create a managed bean, annotate it with applicationscope, define a variable in it, and access this variable from any jsf managed bean through injecting the application scoped bean with the managedproperty annotation:
#ManagedBean
public final class SomeJsfBean
{
#ManagedProperty(value = "#{applicationBean}")
private ApplicationBean applicationBean;
private void method()
{
applicationBean.setInstanceName("instance");
}
}
#ManagedBean
public final class AnotherJsfBean
{
#ManagedProperty(value = "#{applicationBean}")
private ApplicationBean applicationBean;
private void method()
{
String instance = applicationBean.getInstanceName();
}
}
I have some restrictions though. I want to use a global object of Spring. I don't have any XML config in my project. Spring is configured like this and nothing more:
#Configuration
#ComponentScan(value = { "megan.fox.is.hot", "as.is.lindsay.lohan" })
public class SpringConfiguration
{
}
I have looked in many places, something I found was fetching a property from PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer and stuff like that, but I didn't understand how it works and mainly it looks way too complex for what i need: just sharing one variable.
There must be an easy solution like in the JSF world, but i suspect i am looking for the wrong name in the Spring world! :)
Any help is greatly appreciated, this is the last thing I need to fix in my project!
I wanted to implement the factory pattern with CDI. Here we have the business case example:
A client provides a string representing a type. Depending on this type the factory returns an implementation of an interface.
I know that there are a lot of questions flying around concerning factory pattern and CDI. The difference I have here is that I resolve the implementation returned by the factory based on a runtime parameter.
I was thinking of using a producer method but then I can not think of how to inject the resolved implementation into the bean where the implementation is needed since this is a runtime parameter which is not necessarily known at contruction time.
So I thought of the pretty straight forward way of using the Instance class.
Here is the basic implementation :
// the interface. Instances of this class are returned from the factory
public interface Product {
}
// one implementation may be returned by the factory
#ProductType("default")
public class DefaultProduct implements Product {
}
// another implementation may be returned by the factory
#ProductType("myProduct")
public class MyProduct implements Product {
}
// the qualifier annotation
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface ProductType {
String value();
}
// the Annotation implementation to select
// the correct implementation in the factory
public class ProductTypeLiteral extends AnnotationLiteral<ProductType>
implements ProductType {
private String type;
public ProductTypeLiteral(String type) {
this.type = type;
}
#Override
public String value() {
return type;
}
}
// the factory itself. It is annotated with #Singleton because the
// factory is only needed once
#Singleton
public class Factory {
#Inject
#Any
private Instance<Product> products;
public Product getProduct(String type) {
ProductTypeLiteral literal = new ProductTypeLiteral(type);
Instance<Product> typeProducts = products.select(literal);
return typeProducts.get();
}
}
In my opinion using Instance is very sophisticated.
But this has one major drawback:
Everytime you cal the Instance.get() method you retrieve a new Instance of Product. This may be fine but the Instance instance keeps a reference of the returned instance internally. So as long as the Factory lives and each time the Instance.get() is called the more instances of Product will exist in the memory and never get garbage collected because a reference is still hold in Instance.
I thought of not making the Factory a singleton but that just shifts the problem and does not solve it. And of course it is against the factory pattern.
Another solution I tried was to iterate through the Instance instead of selecting an implementation with the help of the annotation:
#Singleton
public class Factory {
#Inject
#Any
private Instance<Product> products;
public Product getProduct(String type) {
Product product = null;
for(Product eachProduct : products) {
ProductType productType = eachProduct.getClass().
getAnnotation(ProductType.class)
if(productType.value().equals(type) {
product = eachProduct;
break;
}
}
return product;
}
}
Basically this is working. Now each time depending on the given type I retrieve the same instance of Product. That way the memory is not consumed.
But I don't like it to iterate over a collection when I have the possibility to resolve the correct implementations more elegantly.
Do you have any ideas which may solve the problem? Otherwise I may have to keep the iteration solution.
Herein lies your problem. Instance keeps reference to instances you obtain from it using get() because it is responsible for reclaiming them when they go out of scope (i.e. when the injected Instance goes out of scope. But because you made your factory a singleton, it will never go out of scope. So, make your factory a short-lived scope, like #RequestScoped or even #Dependent, that way all the returned instances will be reclaimed properly.
Maybe it can help you:
Create qualifiers:
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface MyProduct{
}
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface DefaultProduct{
}
In Factory class:
#Singleton
public class Factory {
public Product getProduct(#MyProduct MyProduct product, #DefaultProduct DefaultProduct defaultProduct) {
//What you wanna do
}
}
I have a collection of Processor beans in my application along with a factory for creating them.
public abstract class Processor {
public Processor(String config) { .... }
public abstract void process() throws Exception;
}
public class Processor1 extends Processor {
public Processor1(String config) { super(config);..}
public void process() {....}
}
public Processor newProcessor(String impl, String config) {
// use reflection to create processor
}
Can I use CDI to replace the factory class/method? And instead use a #Produces?
I tried using the following to iterate or select the instance I wanted. But Weld tells me that allProcessorInstances.isUnsatisfied() == true. I had to create default no-args ctor in order for Weld to find my Processor subclasses.
#Inject #Any Instance<Processor> allProcessorInstances;
Is there any way to tell the CDI container to use the constructor I want it to use? Or am I thinking about this problem the wrong way?
To use the constructor you'd need to annotate it with #Inject, however, every param on the constructor must itself be a bean or something in the CDI scopes.
Using a producer method and having that take an InjectionPoint as a param, then having your configuration be part of an annotation would work.