A GenericServlet is a type of ServletConfig, also GenericServlet has a ServletConfig. What is logic in this? How should I understand this?
public abstract class GenericServlet implements Servlet, ServletConfig, Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private transient ServletConfig config;
..
}
The ServletConfig is an interface and is implemented by services in order to pass configuration information to a servlet when it is first loaded.
GenericServlet implements ServletConfig. It's not a subclass of ServletConfig. Understand the difference between a subclass and interface.
GenericServlet class implements Servlet, ServletConfig and Serializable interfaces. It provides the implementation of all the methods of these interfaces except the service method.
GenericServlet class can handle any type of request so it is protocol-independent.
You may create a generic servlet by inheriting the GenericServlet class and providing the implementation of the service method.
Visit here for more
Related
In my JSF application i have a process that takes to long to complete and i don't want that the user keeps waiting till its finish. I'm trying to implement some kind of 'fire and forget task' to run in background.
I'm doing it using an #Asynchronous method. This is the right approach?
My controller:
#ViewScoped
#Named
public class Controller implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = -6252722069169270081L;
#Inject
private Record record;
#Inject
private Service service;
public void save() {
this.record.generateHash();
boolean alreadyExists = this.service.existsBy(this.record.getHash());
if (alreadyExists)
Messages.add(null, new FacesMessage(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_ERROR, "Error", "This record already exists"));
else {
this.service.save(this.record);
this.clearFields();
}
}
}
My service:
#Stateless
public class Service extends AbstractService<Record> {
private static final long serialVersionUID = -6327726420832825798L;
#Inject
private BeanManager beanManager;
#Override
public void save(Record record) {
super.save(record);
this.preProcess(record);
}
#Asynchronous
private void preProcess(Cd cd) {
// Long task running here ...
this.beanManager.fireEvent(cd);
}
}
But even with this approach the user keeps stuck at the page till the preProcess method finishes.
The problem here is that annotations that modify the behavior of EJBs (and CDI beans) are only applied when called by the "proxy" object that gets injected to appropriate injection points, like fields annotated with #EJB or #Inject.
This is because of how the containers implement the functionality that modifies the behavior. The object that the container injects to clients of EJBs (and normal-scoped CDI beans) is actually a proxy that knows how to call the correct instance of the target bean (e.g. the correct instance of e #RequestScoped bean). The proxy also implements the extra behaviors, like #Transactional or #Asynchronous. Calling the method through this bypasses the proxy functionalities! For this reason placing these annotations on non-public methods is effectively a NO-OP!
A non-exclusive list of solutions:
Move preProcess() to a different EJB, make it public and keep the #Asynchronous annotation
Make preProcess() public and call it from the Controller
If the computation is truly private to the Service and exposing it would break design, and ou don't mind doing a bit more manual work, you can always run async tasks from the container-provided ManagedExecutorService:
#Resource
private ManagedExecutorService managedExecutorService;
Pay attention to the semantics of the thread that executes your code - more specifically to what context values are propagated and what not! Well, you have to pay attention to that for #Asynchronous methods too!
I'm working on a spring project from our customer.
Below is the code for controller
#Log4j2
#RestController
#AllArgsConstructor
#RequestMapping(path = "/api/theapi")
#Api(value = "Description for the API")
public class TheAPIController {
private final ModelMapper modelMapper;
private final ObjectMapper objectMapper;
private final TheDemoService demoService;
...other code for controller
}
Below is the code for Service:
#Service
public class TheDemoService{ ... }
I was so surprise about 2 things:
Question 1: Why we need to use #AllArgsConstructor from project Lombok?
As per my understanding, Spring provide #RestController that Spring runtime container will initialize an Instance for our Controller. So that, having a constructor for our Controller seems like an invalid approach for using Spring Inversion of Control, is this correct?
Question 2. Because of using #AllArgsConstructor, somehow, the instance for demoService is to be injected
But again, I surprise because the code of Controller does not have #Autowired in combine with demoService.
In the actual code, there is no #Autowired for "private final TheDemoService demoService".
Hence, I could think of a possibility there, is that because of Lombok's #AllArgsConstructor would inject an instance of our TheDemoService via a constructor of
TheAPIController, I could not reason anything about this logic.
It's Invalid approach, no need for defining constructor for RestController
It's implicitly auto wiring the service
if a class, which is configured as a Spring bean, has only one constructor, the Autowired annotation can be omitted and Spring will use that constructor and inject all necessary dependencies.
To sum up #AllArgsConstructor can/should be removed
I have a Spring portlet controller class. In this class, there is a dependency like this:
#Autowired
protected ServiceClass someService;
#Autowired
protected ApplicationContext context;
From the controller, there is a utility class being called like this:
UtilityClass.loadStaticData((WebApplicationContext)context);
Inside UtilityClass, I have:
public static synchronized boolean loadStaticData(WebApplicationContext context){
ServiceClass someService = (ServiceClass) context.getBean("someService");
...
}
My question is: Is there any advantage to getting the handle of the someService in such a complicated way? We could have just passed the reference 'someService' from Controller class #1 to the UtilityClass. The author is no longer available so I am asking here.
This is basically what dependency injection tries to avoid: getting a dependency from the container instead of having the dependency injected by the container.
This utility class should be a Spring bean, where the service would be injected. And you could then inject this utility bean inside the controller.
I was wondering what is the difference between creating a new class and injecting it with the #Autowired annotation and creating a class and take the object of this class and using its methods. Is there any techical reason(i.e. faster access etc)?
Service case:
#Service
public class AuthorService implements AuthorServiceInterface {
//some methods
}
Simple Class case:
public class AuthorService implements AuthorServiceInterface {
//some methods
}
If i want to call the first one in another class i have to write:
public Class myclass{
#Autowired
AuthorService authorservice;
}
In the second case i have to write:
public Class myclass{
AuthorService authorservice = new AuthorService():
}
Whats the difference between these two cases?
The first snippet uses dependency injection, and the second doesn't. Dependency injection allows
decoupling MyClass from the concrete implementation of AuthorService which would allow switching implementations depending on the environment for example
using a singleton (or session-scoped or request-scope) AuthorService rather than reinstantiating one each time
injecting a mock AuthorService implementation when unit-testing MayClass
injecting a proxy around the concrete AuthorService instance, which could
verify authorizations
start a transaction before each method call and commit/rollback it after the method call
log the method calls
measure the time taken by methods and compute statistics
invoke an AuthorService on another machine, using RMI or HttpInvoker
...
Note that you should autowire AuthorServiceInterface, and not AuthorService, in MyClass.
I have a session object which contains a reference to another object that I do not wish to serialize.
Is it possible to do so using annotations?
#Component
public class Model implements Serializable{
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Autowired
private Validator validator;
Thanks in advance,
You can mark it with transient, though it would be null after deserialization.
You can also move the validation out of the POJO into a helper class. You could use the validation annotations from javax.validation describe in JSR-303. Here is a howto link:
http://www.openscope.net/2010/02/08/spring-mvc-3-0-and-jsr-303-aka-javax-validation/