The Java EE 7 Tutorial says that no-interface view will "exposes a local" and "Business Interfaces" will "implement local business interfaces", but the code is same. What is the difference between them? Please give me an example, I am newbie.
In case that bean is implementing a local interface, the interface can be packaged in different module and this module can be later imported into the client application, thus hiding the implementation. On the other hand, no-interface view means that client would need to have dependency on the implementation which is less flexible solution.
So generally, you can safely use no-interface view when bean will interact only within your service (let's say some DAO helper class) and use bean with local interfaces it there is ever going to be used on the client side.
Nice explanation about all views is here.
Related
When a local client gets a reference to a LocalBean, does the container provide a direct reference to bean instance? If not, what is provided?
Pointers to specs and authentic sources would be highly appreciated.
The spec does not prescribe that explicitly as I see, but injected references to EJBs are normally interface-based proxies. That's necessary for providing container services, like transaction management and timeout control, picking an instance from the pool in case of SLSB, calling user interceptors if any, etc.
While the spec only tells something rather neutral:
The container is responsible for making the business interfaces and/or
home interfaces of its deployed enterprise beans available to the
client through dependency injection and/or through lookup in the JNDI
namespace.
You can easily check that BTW, for example with debugger.
I need to make several properties accessible from application's business layer. Those are some ids and common settings. Most of them are valid only through request-response lifespan.
This is a web application (ASP.NET Web Forms to be specific) with dependency injection set up.
Currently those properties are passed through method parameters directly to business layer's services. That works but is not very efficient since:
sometimes parameters' values need to be passed deeper obscuring the readability a bit
some properties should be lazy resolved, and this should be done only once per request
retrieving properties which are resolved by touching a database can be confusing for new developers (there is not unified way of doing this)
some services are constructed by a factory which enriches them with some config parameters
I was thinking about introducing an application context interface, with an implementation in the main project, which would be created on every request. It could be injected to the services directly making them parametrized automatically and independently (services won't need the factory anymore).
Is it how this problem should be tackled or maybe there are some other options?
One option I don't like here is that it might bond the main particle with business layer which is not a perfect example of The Clean Architecture.
Id say you solution is a very common one - inject an 'application context' into your classes. One thing I would be careful of though is making sure you are following the Integration Segregation Principle (from SOLID). Dont just start making all your classes expect an application context instance. Instead, design interfaces that split the application context up, and have your classes expect them as dependencies. Your application context will then need to implement all the interfaces.
This is the correct way to do things as it decouples your classes from implementation. Really your classes don't care if their dependency is from one giant application context, they just care about specific methods implemented by it. This will make your code more robust as you will reduce the risk of breaking something if you change the implementation of the application context later on.
Why don't you use some dependency injection container? Your global settings and parameters can be registered to it as pseudo-singletons and then you will be able to neatly request them from any point inside your application.
We are using ejb 2.1 to expose as a webservice using apache axis2.I have read in codebranch website that both are serverside components where in ejb can be run in more than one server unlike servlets..but I didn't get clear picture of difference.
Let me quote this old (but good) comparison.
Enterprise JavaBeans are components meant to encapsulate business logic. They do not handle presentation and have a precise set of restrictions they must obey. An EJB may not manage threads, access files with the java.io package, have a GUI, accept socket connections, or load native libraries. These restrictions are imposed because EJBs execute inside an EJB container, roughly analogous to the way servlets execute in a servlet container. Where servlets can be used to perform many arbitrary tasks, including the generation of HTML pages, EJBs are used almost entirely as business objects. A session bean represents a client for a session or transaction and an entity bean represents a persistent business object that is usually stored in a database. Unlike servlets, a single session bean may exist per client. A single servlet may serve many clients. A session bean usually mediates client access to entity beans, shielding the client from the details of managing state.
I got exact answer Both are server side entities.EJB is designed by wrapping RMI API's.EJB is a service at Enterprise level.Main advantage that EJB can be a webservice which can deployed anywhere in the world.EJB is servicelayer enity which can even used by servlets.
We can have plain java in the service layer but differance that EJB has is it(EJB) can be alone deployed in any server unlike plain-java service layer.
I have a small app (Win Forms) where I have two different repositories (SQL Server and Redis) both implementing a interface IFilterRepo.
I also have a service class that depends on the IFilterRepo. The client (the Win Form) call the service to access filter data.
I want the client to have two radio buttons where a user can choose which repo to use. And here comes my dilemma. How should I tell the service which concrete class to instantiate as IFilterRepo? I mean, ALL Unity registrations and references to it shall be done in the composition root. Is that "rule" really possible in this case?
This is a common question, and the answer is generally to use an Abstract Factory.
Here is a good article on the subject (I link this all the time, but I didn't write it):
http://blog.ploeh.dk/2012/03/15/ImplementinganAbstractFactory/
As noted in the article, you can make the factory part of the composition root, so that calling container.Resolve() inside the factory doesn't violate that rule.
Edit
You would register different implementations of the service using a name (string):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff648211.aspx
myContainer.RegisterType<IMyService, CustomerService>("Customers");
And then your factory would resolve by that name:
public IFilterRepo Create(string myName)
{
return myContainer.Resolve<IFilterRepo>(myName);
}
Edit 2
The question you asked in your last comment is a bit much to answer here, but in brief: your factory itself would implement an interface, and would be resolved and registered via the container.
As a general matter, I would not recommend accessing a repository directly from the code behind--I would at least look at having a layered architecture (or better, an Onion architecture, which works very well with DI).
Finally, I have not done WinForms development in years, but I don't think it fits perfectly with using a container/Composition Root, since you don't have full control over the lifecycle of your objects (you can't inject services into your form constructors). The same is true of ASP.Net Webforms. So you may have to use property injection for your factory and other services needed in your form, or just resolve the factory directly via calling a static instance of the container (container.Resolve()). This is imperfect, and goes against the idea of having a Composition Root, and more toward service location.
You might google keywords "Unity WinForms" and/or "[OtherDIFramework] Winforms" to get some ideas of how to structure your code.
I've read through this article trying to understand why you want a session bean in between the client and entity bean. Is it because by letting the client access entity bean directly you would let the client know exactly all about the database?
So by having middleman (the session bean) you would only let the client know part of the database by implementing the business logic in some certain way. So only part of the database which is relevant to the client is only visible. Possibly also increase the security.
Is the above statement true?
Avoiding tight coupling between the client & the business objects, increasing manageability.
Reducing fine-grained method invocations, leads to minimize method invocation calls over the network, providing coarse-grained access to clients.
Can have centralized security & transaction constraints.
Greater flexibility & ability to cope with changes.
Exposing only required & providing simpler interface to the clients, hiding the underlying complexity and inner details, interdependencies between business components.
The article you cite is COMPLETELY out of date. Check the date, it's from 2002.
There is no such thing anymore as an entity bean in EJB (they are currently retained for backwards compatibility, but are on the verge of being purged completely). Entity beans where awkward things; a model object (e.g. Person) that lives completely in the container and where access to every property of it (e.g. getName, getAge) required a remote container call.
In this time and age, we have JPA entities that are POJOs and contain only data. Don't confuse a JPA entity with this ancient EJB entity bean. They sound similar but are completely different things. JPA entities can be safely send to a (remote) client. If you are really concerned that the names used in your entity reveal your DB structure, you could use XML mapping files instead of annotations and use completely different names.
That said, session beans can still perfectly be used to implement the Facade pattern if that's needed. This pattern is indeed used to give clients a simplified and often restricted view of your system. It's just that the idea of using session beans as a Facade for entity beans is completely outdated.
It is to simplify the work of the client. The Facade presents a simple interface and hides the complexity of the model from the client. It also makes it possible for the model to change without affecting the client, as long as the facade does not change its interface.
It decouples application logic with the business logic.
So the actual data structures and implementation can change without breaking existing code utilizing the APIs.
Of course it hides the data structure from "unknown" applications if you expose your beans to external networks