Hi i am new to Annotation and Spring AOP. below is what i am trying to achieve
public interface Service {
public void process(String ServiceName, Bean bean);
}
public class ServiceImpl1 implements Service{
public void process(String ServiceName, Bean bean) {
/// do something here
}
}
public class ServiceImpl2 implements Service{
public void process(String ServiceName, Bean bean) {
/// do something here
}
}
from other class i would be calling something like
...
public void doSomething(String serviceName, Bean bean){
service.process("ServiceImpl1", bean);
}
...
I can achieve the same by using AroundAdvice and Before advice and intercepting my doSomething method and then instantiate the service object after reading the serviceName.
I there is a better approach for this?
I just need a direction and then i will figure this out.
Thanks
Well, I am guessing what you want to do is have a Before advice that takes the passed in service name, creates an object of appropriate class, then calls the appropriate method on that newly created object. It seems like, to me, you are really looking for more of a Factory pattern, but trying to use AOP to accomplish it.
If you took the Factory pattern, you would create a class called ServiceFactory, which takes some parameters and returns the correct Service implementation for those parameters. You calling code would simply use the Factory to get the right Service at runtime.
Another approach, if you want to stick with more of a DI pattern, might be to create a wrapper class that serves as the "conductor". This might have a Map of service names to Service implementation. You could then inject this wrapper into your code, and even inject the Map into the wrapper. Your calling code would call methods on the wrapper, which would locate the correct, singleton implementation and aggrigate the call to it.
I just feel that using AOP for this is asking for trouble.
You can inject the service impl class using the spring #Autowire annotation. Since u have 2 implementation classes, you can use qualifier to specify which impl needs to b injected.
Related
I came across an interesting article: AOP Aspects as mocks in JUnit
Since I have requirement to mock multiple final and private static variables, I am planning to use AOP in place of reflection or PowerMockito as they are causing issues with SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.
Is there any way I can use #Aspect for test classes without using the annotation #EnableAspectJAutoProxy? (I want to use an aspect targeting class X only in one test case.)
This is a sample of what I want to do.
The question is answered(adding for discussion on what could be done)
//External class
public final class ABC(){
public void method1() throws Exception {}
}
#Service
public void DestClass() {
private static final ABC abc = new ABC();
public Object m() {
// code (...)
try {
abc.method1();
}
catch(Exception e) {
// do something (...)
return null;
}
// more code (...)
}
}
Spring framework allows to programmatically create proxies that advise target objects , without configuring through #EnableAspectJAutoProxy or <aop:aspectj-autoproxy>
Details can be found in the documentation section : Programmatic Creation of #AspectJ Proxies and the implementation is pretty simple.
Example code from the documentation.
// create a factory that can generate a proxy for the given target object
AspectJProxyFactory factory = new AspectJProxyFactory(targetObject);
// add an aspect, the class must be an #AspectJ aspect
// you can call this as many times as you need with different aspects
factory.addAspect(SecurityManager.class);
// you can also add existing aspect instances, the type of the object supplied must be an #AspectJ aspect
factory.addAspect(usageTracker);
// now get the proxy object...
MyInterfaceType proxy = factory.getProxy();
Please note that with Spring AOP , only method executions can be adviced. Excerpt from the documentation
Spring AOP currently supports only method execution join points
(advising the execution of methods on Spring beans). Field
interception is not implemented, although support for field
interception could be added without breaking the core Spring AOP APIs.
If you need to advise field access and update join points, consider a
language such as AspectJ.
The document shared with the question is about aspectj and without providing the sample code to be adviced it is hard to conclude if the requriement can acheived through Spring AOP. The document mentions this as well.
One example of the integration of AspectJ is the Spring framework,
which now can use the AspectJ pointcut language in its own AOP
implementation. Spring’s implementation is not specifically targeted
as a test solution.
Hope this helps.
--- Update : A test case without using AOP ---
Consider the external Class
public class ABCImpl implements ABC{
#Override
public void method1(String example) {
System.out.println("ABC method 1 called :"+example);
}
}
And the DestClass
#Service
public class DestClass {
private static final ABC service = new ABCImpl();
protected ABC abc() throws Exception{
System.out.println("DestClass.abc() called");
return service;
}
public Object m() {
Object obj = new Object();
try {
abc().method1("test");
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception : "+ e.getMessage());
return null;
}
return obj;
}
}
Following test class autowires the DestClass bean with overridden logic to throw exception . This code can be modified to adapt to your requirement.
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(classes = { DestClassSpringTest.TestConfiguration.class })
public class DestClassSpringTest {
#Configuration
static class TestConfiguration {
#Bean
public DestClass destClass() {
return new DestClass() {
protected ABC abc() throws Exception {
// super.abc(); // not required . added to demo the parent method call
throw new Exception("Custom exception thrown");
}
};
}
}
#Autowired
DestClass cut;
#Test
public void test() {
Object obj = cut.m();
assertNull(obj);
}
}
Following will be the output log
DestClass.abc() called // this will not happen if the parent method call is commented in DestClassSpringTest.TestConfiguration
Exception : Custom exception thrown
The article you are referring to is using full AspectJ, not Spring AOP. Thus, you do not need any #EnableAspectJAutoProxy for that, just
either the AspectJ load-time weaver on the command line when running your test via -javaagent:/path/to/aspectjweaver.jar
or the AspectJ compiler activated when compiling your tests (easily done via AspectJ Maven plugin if you use Maven)
Both approaches are completely independent of Spring, will work in any project and even when using Spring also work when targeting execution of third party code because no dynamic proxies are needed unlike in Spring AOP. So there is no need to make the target code into a Spring bean or to create a wrapper method in your application class for it. When using compile-time weaving you can even avoid weaving into the third party library by using call() instead of execution() pointcut. Spring AOP only knows execution(), AspectJ is more powerful.
By the way: Unfortunately both your question and your comment about the solution you found are somewhat fuzzy and I do not fully understand your requirement. E.g. you talked about mocking final and private static variables, which would also be possible in other ways with AspectJ by using set() and/or get() pointcuts. But actually it seems you do not need to mock the field contents, just stub the results of method calls upon the objects assigned to those fields.
I am currently using the BLoC pattern to implement firebase/firestore functionality. It seems common to implement a model, an entity (which is basically the model hold by the database) and a repository which handels requests of the program.
To convert the model into the entity and vice versa the model requires a toEntity and fromEntity method. I want my class to look like this:
#immutable
abstract class DatabaseModel {
final id;
DatabaseEntity toEntity();
DatabaseModel({#required this.id});
static DatabaseModel fromEntity(DatabaseEntity entity);
}
However, this is not possible. Dart does not allow static methods without a function body as mentioned in Can one declare a static method within an abstract class, in Dart?, based on the fact that static methods aren't inherited anyways.
I thought about implementing the fromEntity method as a member method of DatabaseModel model with an additional static method which calls the member method, like this:
abstract class DatabaseModel {
final id;
DatabaseEntity toEntity();
DatabaseModel({#required this.id});
static DatabaseModel createFromEntity(DatabaseEntity entity, DatabaseModel instance) {
return instance.fromEntity(entity);
}
DatabaseModel fromEntity(DatabaseEntity entity);
}
But because of the following drawbacks I decided against using this method:
The inheriting class cannot longer be #immutable
Creating a new instance is not really straight forward since e.g. an object of class YouTubeComment would be instantiated like this - DatabaseModel.createFromEntity(entity, YouTubeComment()).
This requires the inheriting class to implement an empty constructor to create the instance.
Since it is not possible to implement a static method or an appropriate constructor, Is there a way to signal the developer that it is intended to implement a static method?
I'm new to EJB and I'm facing my first problem. I'm trying to use an #Schedule method contained in a Stateless EJB. I'd like this method to use a private member variable which would be set at bean creation:
Here's a short example:
#Singleton
#LocalBean
#Startup
public class Starter {
#PostActivate
private void postActivate() {
ScheduleEJB scheduleEjb = new ScheduleEJB("Hello");
}
}
And the schedule bean:
#Stateless
#LocalBean
public class ScheduleEJB {
private String message;
public ScheduleEJB() {
super();
}
public ScheduleEJB(String message) {
super();
this.message= message;
}
#Schedule(second="*/3", minute="*", hour="*", dayOfMonth="*", dayOfWeek="*", month="*", year="*")
private void printMsg() {
System.out.println("MESSAGE : " + message);
}
}
The problem is that my "message" variable is always null when printed in the printMsg() method... What's the best way to achieve this?
Thanks for your help !
You're mixing few things here.
The #PostActivate annotation is to be used on Stateful Session Beans (SFSB), and you use it on the singleton. I guess that you mean the #PostConstruct method which applies to every bean which lifecycle is managed by the container.
You're using a constructor from your EJB. You cannot do:
ScheduleEJB scheduleEjb = new ScheduleEJB("Hello");
as it creates just an instance of this class. It's not an EJB - the container didn't create it, so this class does not have any EJB nature yet.
That's the whole point of dependency injection - you just define what you want and the container is responsible for providing you with an appropriate instance of the resource.
The Stateless Bean (SLSB) is not intented to hold the state. The SFSB is. Even if you would set the message in one SLSB method (i.e. in some ScheduleEJB#setMessage(String) method) than you need to remember that the EJB's are pooled. You don't have any guarantee that the next time you invoke a method on the ScheduleEJB you will get to the same instance.
In your case it would be the easies solution just to add the #Schedule method to your singleton class. Than you can define the variable of your choice in the #PostConstruct method. You can be sure that there is only one Singleton instance per JVM, so your variable will be visible in the Schedule annotated method of the same class.
HTH.
In EJB2, one needed to use getEJBBusinessObject() method in a EJB to pass reference to itself when calling another (local/remote) bean.
Does the same apply for EJB3?
e.g.
#Stateless
public class MyBean implements MyBeanLocal {
#Resource private SessionContext sessionContext;
public void myMethod() {
OtherBeanLocal otherBean = ...; // getting reference to other local EJB.
MyBeanLocal myBean = sessionContext.getBusinessObject(MyBeanLocal.class);
b.aMethod(myBean);
}
// Edit: calling myMethodTwo() from inside of myMethodOne()
public void myMethodOne() {
MyBeanLocal myBean = sessionContext.getBusinessObject(MyBeanLocal.class);
myBean.myMethodTwo();
}
public void myMethodTwo() {
...
}
...
}
Also, if I fetch my local bean using getBusinessObject() method, is it the same as if I use common JNDI lookup?
I've tested both approach, and both work, but I'm not sure if bean object is processed the same way by the container.
Edit:
Is fetching the reference to ejb itself, when calling myMethodTwo() from inside myMethodOne() of the same ejb, in EJB3, still needed? Is it allowed to call methods inside the same ejb through this reference?
How will this address transactions, if I decide to use some?
Yes, the same applies to EJB 3. Yes, getBusinessObject is the EJB 3 analog to getEJBObject (or getEJBLocalObject). All of those methods return a proxy for the current bean object. For stateless session beans, this is basically the same as looking up through JNDI, though it's likely to perform better since it avoids JNDI overhead.
or can the class be implementing an abstract class also?
To mock a type, it must either be an interface (this is also called being pure virtual) or have virtual members (abstract members are also virtual).
By this definition, you can mock everything which is virtual.
Essentially, dynamic mocks don't do anything you couldn't do by hand.
Let's say you are programming against an interface such as this one:
public interface IMyInterface
{
string Foo(string s);
}
You could manually create a test-specific implementation of IMyInterface that ignores the input parameter and always returns the same output:
public class MyClass : IMyInterface
{
public string Foo(string s)
{
return "Bar";
}
}
However, that becomes repetitive really fast if you want to test how the consumer responds to different return values, so instead of coding up your Test Doubles by hand, you can have a framework dynamically create them for you.
Imagine that dynamic mocks really write code similar to the MyClass implementation above (they don't actually write the code, they dynamically emit the types, but it's an accurate enough analogy).
Here's how you could define the same behavior as MyClass with Moq:
var mock = new Mock<IMyInterface>();
mock.Setup(x => x.Foo(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns("Bar");
In both cases, the construcor of the created class will be called when the object is created. As an interface has no constructor, this will normally be the default constructor (of MyClass and the dynamically emitted class, respectively).
You can do the same with concrete types such as this one:
public class MyBase
{
public virtual string Ploeh()
{
return "Fnaah";
}
}
By hand, you would be able to derive from MyBase and override the Ploeh method because it's virtual:
public class TestSpecificChild : MyBase
{
public override string Ploeh()
{
return "Ndøh";
}
}
A dynamic mock library can do the same, and the same is true for abstract methods.
However, you can't write code that overrides a non-virtual or internal member, and neither can dynamic mocks. They can only do what you can do by hand.
Caveat: The above description is true for most dynamic mocks with the exception of TypeMock, which is different and... scary.
From Stephen Walther's blog:
You can use Moq to create mocks from both interfaces and existing classes. There are some requirements on the classes. The class can’t be sealed. Furthermore, the method being mocked must be marked as virtual. You cannot mock static methods (use the adaptor pattern to mock a static method).