In the strange, strange dependency injection world of Jersey, you can include an AbstractBinder (but maybe not just a Binder) as one of the objects in the return value of your Application's getSingletons() method.
That AbstractBinder can then call various bind() methods from within its configure() method, which Jersey, but no other JAX-RS implementation, is guaranteed to call—and hence you can link implementations to interfaces, which lets you do a semblance of dependency injection from that point forward in your application. That is, once you've done that, then injection points within, say, your resource classes will be "filled" by the implementations you've bound.
(You can also do this with factory classes, so that you bind a particular factory method's return value to a contract it implements.)
OK, fine.
Jersey also lets you place a Class that implements Feature into the return value of your Application's getClasses() method. Fine. This Feature class will be instantiated by HK2 under the covers—make a mental note of that!—and its configure(FeatureContext) method will be called at some point. At that point, the Feature may register some additional stuff by calling FeatureContext#register() and handing it whatever it wants to register.
(Presumably this is all a fairly complicated façade on top of HK2's DynamicConfiguration machinery.)
Anyway, since a Feature is instantiated by HK2 (remember?), it follows that you can #Inject things into its constructor, or have injection points elsewhere in the class. That's cool! Then HK2 can draw upon all the services it knows of to fill those injection points. Very neat.
Ah, but the question is: what is the state of the HK2 world at this point? What services can be injected into a Feature implementation instantiated as part of A JAX-RS Application's startup sequence?
If your Application's getSingletons() method returns an AbstractBinder implementation that binds a FooImpl to Foo in Singleton scope in its configure() method, can your Feature—"registered" by including its class in the return value of your Application's getClasses() method—then inject a Foo?
I think it is important to have your Foo interface binding proxied, i.e:
new AbstractBinder() {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(Foo.class)
.proxy(true)
.to(FooImpl.class)
.in(Singleton.class);
}
}
then dependency injection will be insensitive to the instatination order.
Related
I have app wide component (contains only Singletons), which is accesible by static method App.getComponent();. My component contains method void inject(MainActivity activity) and it works fine. I also have void inject(TaskRepo repo), but this one does not work. In TaskRepoImpl() I invoke: App.getComponent().inject(this);, but it does not injects anything. I'm sure that I annotated public members with #Inject.
Injecting with methods like TaskRepo repo = App.getComponent().taskRepo(); works fine. So why does Dagger ignores these members?
In short, you need the method to be void inject(TaskRepoImpl impl); you can't just accept TaskRepo. Your case is described in the Component docs under "A note about covariance".
Dagger is a compile-time framework: at compile time Dagger will take a look at your Component and write implementations based on the methods on your Component (and its Modules). Some of those methods might be members injection methods (same link as above), which are single-arg methods that set #Inject fields and call #Inject methods for the instance you pass in. These are typically void methods named inject, but they can be named anything, and they might also return the instance they inject (for chaining).
The trick is, Dagger can only anticipate the fields and methods on the specific type you define, not its subclasses: if you create a members-injection method void inject(Foo foo), then only Foo's fields and methods count, even if Foo's subclass Bar has #Inject-annotated methods. Even if your Dagger graph knows about both Foo and Bar, it would not know about other Foo subclasses, and would not necessarily be prepared to inject them (because all of that happens at compile time). This is also not a problem for "provision methods" (zero-arg factories/getters on Components) because as long as Dagger knows how to create a particular concrete type for a binding, it can inject that concrete type and simply return the reference as its supertype or interface.
Therefore, switching the injection to the actual implementation class avoids this problem, because Dagger can inspect the implementation class TaskRepoImpl at compile time and ensure it has the bindings that TaskRepoImpl defines in its #Inject-annotated methods and fields.
#Component(modules = {...}) public interface YourComponent {
/**
* Only injects the fields and methods on TaskRepo, which might do
* nothing--especially if TaskRepo is just an interface.
*/
void inject(TaskRepo taskRepo);
/**
* Injects the fields and methods on TaskRepoImpl, TaskRepo, and
* any other superclasses or interfaces.
*/
void inject(TaskRepoImpl taskRepoImpl);
/**
* Gets a TaskRepo implementation. If you've bound TaskRepo to TaskRepoImpl,
* Dagger _can_ inject all of TaskRepoImpl's fields, because it knows at
* compile time that there's a TaskRepoImpl instance to inject.
*/
TaskRepo taskRepo();
}
As a side note, constructor injection allows you to better-encapsulate your classes by using final fields and avoiding partially-constructed (constructed but not injected) instances. I recommend using constructor injection where possible, and recommend strongly against using field injection and constructor injection separately for the same type. (You're probably not doing this other than to debug your case, but I'm leaving the note here for future readers as well.)
I am new to Dagger (version 2.16 on Android) and based on my reading so far, I understand that for a component, there should be a provider (#Provides or #Binds) encapsulated in a module (#Module). Going through a lot of samples, I see code which has some objects which are not offered in any Module, nor are they being instantiated using new.
It is also my understanding that in order to access the dependencies in a module, a consumer class needs to inject itself in the component graph (components usually offer a method to inject classes). The code examples are not doing this either.
Here's some code demonstrating both my concerns. RecipePresenter is not being provided in any module, but still RecipeActivity is using it.
A possible explanation I could think of is that #Inject, in addition to requesting the dependency also adds/injects the requesting class (RecipePresenter in the linked code) into the component graph. But assuming there are multiple components/subcomponents, which component does the class using #Inject constructor gets attached to? If my understanding is correct, why do activities and fragments have to inject themselves manually in the component - shouldn't they be auto-injected if they declare a variable annotated with #Inject?
RecipePresenter has an #Inject-annotated constructor, which allows it to be provided. The #Inject annotation on the recipePresenter field within RecipeActivity does not help, just the #Inject-annotated constructor.
class RecipePresenter #Inject constructor(
private val useCase: RecipeUseCase,
private val res: StringRetriever) :
RecipeUseCase.Callback {
From the Dagger User's Guide:
Use #Inject to annotate the constructor that Dagger should use to create instances of a class. When a new instance is requested, Dagger will obtain the required parameters values and invoke this constructor.
If the class with the #Inject-annotated constructor also has a defined scope, then the binding will only affect components with the same scope annotation: An #ActivityScope class wouldn't be accessible from a #Singleton component, for instance. If the class has no scope defined, then the binding could appear on any and all components where it is needed, which is fine: The implementation is always the same, defined by the constructor itself.
#Inject has different meanings based on what it's annotating:
When you annotate a field with #Inject, it indicates that the DI system should set that field based on values from the DI system when it injects that object.
When you annotate a method with #Inject, it indicates that the DI system should call that method with parameters based on values from the DI system when it injects that object.
When you annotate a constructor with #Inject, it indicates that the DI system is allowed to call that constructor in order to create that object (which triggers the field and method injection above). In that sense it does act like a built-in Provider.
In Dagger specifically, #Provides methods take precedence over #Inject constructors (if they both exist for the same class), and unlike in the JSR-330 spec Dagger requires an #Inject-annotated constructor even when no other constructors are present. From the Dagger User's Guide:
If your class has #Inject-annotated fields but no #Inject-annotated constructor, Dagger will inject those fields if requested, but will not create new instances. Add a no-argument constructor with the #Inject annotation to indicate that Dagger may create instances as well.
Classes that lack #Inject annotations cannot be constructed by Dagger.
Finally, to answer your question about why activities and fragments need to inject themselves: Android is allowed to reflectively create Activity/Fragment/View objects without Dagger's help or participation. This means that nothing triggers the field and method injection described above, until you call a members-injection method on the component that instructs Dagger to populate those fields and call those methods. Consequently, you should never see an #Inject-annotated constructor on Application, Activity, Service, Fragment, View, ContentProvider, and BroadcastReceiver subclasses in Android: Android will ignore the #Inject annotation, so you might as well take control over injection yourself, manually or through dagger.android.
I never worked with such a confusing DI-framework like dagger! - However, I try to wrap my head around it.
I have two scopes: ActivityScope and FragmentScope
On some of the samples provided StatisticsFragment.java you see e.g. the fragment annotated with the scope
#ActivityScoped
public class StatisticsFragment extends DaggerFragment implements
StatisticsContract.View {
...
}
Question 1:
Is this just documentation or not? In my app it makes no difference if I annotate the concrete fragment or not.
Question 2: Where in the generated code can I see which scope is used? My fragment injects a Presenter and an AuthProvider. The AuthProvider is annotated with Singleton (in AppModule), the Presenter is defined in UIModule -> LoginModule
looks like this:
UIModule.java:
#Module(includes = AndroidSupportInjectionModule.class)
public abstract class UIModule {
#ActivityScope
#ContributesAndroidInjector(modules = LoginModule.class)
abstract LoginActivity loginActivity();
#ChildFragmentScope
#ContributesAndroidInjector(modules = LoginModule.class)
abstract LoginFragment loginFragment();
#Binds
//#ChildFragmentScope
public abstract LoginContract.View loginView(final LoginFragment fragment);
}
LoginModule.java
#Module
public abstract class LoginModule {
#Provides
//#ChildFragmentScope
static LoginContract.Presenter provideLoginPresenter(final LoginContract.View view, final BaseStore store) {
return new LoginPresenter(view,store);
}
}
LoginFragemt.java
public class LoginFragment extends DaggerFragment {
#Inject
LoginContract.Presenter presenter;
#Inject
Provider<MyAuthClass> myAuthClass;
...
}
presenter is created every time the Fragment gets created, myAuthClass gets created only once and is singleton.
Perfect - but I have no idea HOW this works!!!
DaggerFragment#onAttach must somehow know that Presenter is a "local" singleton and MyAuthClass is a global-singleton ...
Scope is one of two ways you can tell Dagger to always bind the same object, rather than returning a newly-created one on each injection request. (The other way is the manual way: Just return the same object in a #Provides method.)
First, a scope overview: Let's say you have a component, FooComponent, which has a #FooScope annotation. You define a subcomponent, BarComponent, which has a #BarScope annotation. That means that using a single FooComponent instance, you can create as many BarComponent instances as you want.
#FooScoped
#Component(modules = /*...*/)
public interface FooComponent {
BarComponent createBarComponent(/* ... */); // Subcomponent factory method
YourObject1 getYourObject1(); // no scope
YourObject2 getYourObject2(); // FooScoped
}
#BarScoped
#Subcomponent(modules = /*...*/)
public interface BarComponent {
YourObject3 getYourObject3(); // no scope
YourObject4 getYourObject4(); // BarScoped
YourObject5 getYourObject5(); // FooScoped
}
When you call fooComponent.getYourObject1(), YourObject1 is unscoped, so Dagger does its default: create a brand new one. When you call fooComponent.getYourObject2(), though, if you've configured that YourObject2 to be #FooScoped, Dagger will return exactly one instance for the entire lifetime of that FooComponent. Of course, you could create two FooComponent instances, but you'll never see multiple instances of a #FooScoped object from the same #FooScoped component (FooComponent).
Now onto BarComponent: getYourObject3() is unscoped, so it returns a new instance every time; getYourObject4() is #BarScoped, so it returns a new instance for each instance of BarComponent; and getYourObject5() is #FooScoped, so you'll get the same instance along the instance of FooComponent from which the BarComponent was created.
Now to your questions:
Question 1: Is this just documentation or not? In my app it makes no difference if I annotate the concrete fragment or not.
In classes that have an #Inject-annotated constructor like StatisticsFragment does, adding a scope annotation is not simply documentation: Without the scope annotation, any requests to inject a StatisticsFragment will generate a brand new one. If you only expect there to be a single instance of StatisticsFragment per Activity, this may be surprising behavior, but it might be hard to notice the difference.
However, adding an #Inject annotation to a Fragment may be something of a controversial move, because the Android infrastructure is able to create and destroy Fragment instances itself. The object that Android recreates will not the scoped one, and it will have its members reinjected onAttach due to DaggerFragment's superclass behavior. I think a better practice is to drop the #Inject annotation from the constructor and stick with field injection for your Fragment. At that point you can drop the scope, because Dagger will never create your Fragment, so it'll never decide whether to create a new one or return an existing one.
Question 2: Where in the generated code can I see which scope is used? My fragment injects a Presenter and an AuthProvider. The AuthProvider is annotated with Singleton (in AppModule), the Presenter is defined in UIModule -> LoginModule
The generated code and scoping is always generated in the Component; subcomponents will have their implementations generated as an inner class of the Component. For each scoped binding, there will be a place in the initialize method where the Provider (e.g. AuthProvider) is wrapped in an instance of DoubleCheck that manages the double-checked locking for singleton components. If nobody asks Dagger to create an object (like StatisticsFragment), Dagger can determine the lack of component factory methods or injections in the graph, and can avoid adding any code generation for it at all—which might be why you're not seeing any.
I'm considering migrating to Dagger 2 some libraries. This library expose a configurable client, each configuration can be named and later retrieved in a singleton fashion.
Let me show a pseudo-code of how the library works from the user perspective:
// initialization
ClientSDK clientA = new ClientSDK.Builder()
.configuration().attributes().here()
.apiKey("someString") // set api key / credentials
.build();
LibraryAuthenticationManager customAuthManager = new MyCustomAuthenticationManager();
ClientSDK clientB = new ClientSDK.Builder()
.configuration().attributes().here()
.apiKey("someStringElse")
.customAuthManager(customAuthManager) // override some default
.baseApiUrl("https://custom.domain.com/and/path") // override some default setting
.build();
ClientSDK.setSingleton("clientA", clientA);
ClientSDK.setSingleton("clientB", clientB);
And when I need an instance elsewhere:
// usage everywhere else
ClientSDK clientB = ClientSDK.singleton("clientB");
clientB.userManager(); // "singleton" using the configuration of clientB
clientB.subscriptionsManager(); // "singleton" using the configuration of clientB
clientB.currentCachedUser(); // for clientB
clientB.doSomething(); // action on this instance of the ClientSDK
ClientSDK instances are created by the user of the library and the ClientSDK statically keep a map of singletons associated to the name.
(The actual behavior of the SDK is slightly different: the naming is automatic and based on a mandatory configuration parameter.)
It's like I have lot of singleton classes with a single point of entry (the ClientSDK) but since I can have multiple configuration of the ClientSDK each with his own singletons instances this are not really singletons.
If I would try write a library like that with Dagger 2 I would do something like:
class ClientSDK {
#Inject SDKConfiguration configuration;
#Inject LibraryAuthenticationManager authManager;
...
}
The problem is that I need each instance of the ClientSDK to have its own configuration and authManager (and many other services) injected. And they need to be definable (the configuration) and overridable (the actual implementation) from the library user.
Can I do something like this with Dagger 2? How?
I've seen I can create custom Scopes but they are defined at compile time and the library user should be the one defining them.
(the library is an Android Library, but this shouldn't be relevant)
Thanks
It sounds like you should be creating stateful/configurable Module instances and then generating separate Components or Subcomponents for each ClientSDK you build.
public class ClientSDK {
#Inject SDKConfiguration configuration;
#Inject LibraryAuthenticationManager authManager;
// ...
public static class Builder {
// ...
public ClientSDK build() {
return DaggerClientSDKComponent.builder()
.configurationModule(new ConfigurationModule(
apiKey, customAuthManager, baseApiUrl)
.build()
.getClientSdk();
}
}
}
...where your ConfigurationModule is a #Module you write that takes all of those configuration parameters and makes them accessible through properly-qualified #Provides methods, your ClientSDKComponent is a #Component you define that refers to the ConfigurationModule (among others) and defines a #Component.Builder inner interface. The Builder is important because you're telling Dagger it can no longer use its modules statically, or through instances it creates itself: You have to call a constructor or otherwise procure an instance, which the Component can then consume to provide instances.
Dagger won't get into the business of saving your named singletons, but it doesn't need to: you can save them yourself in a static Map, or save the ClientSDKComponent instance as an entry point. For that matter, if you're comfortable letting go of some of the control of ClientSDK, you could even make ClientSDK itself the Component; however, I'd advise against it, because you'll have less control of the static methods you want, and will lose the opportunity to write arbitrary methods or throw exceptions as needed.
You don't have to worry yourself about scopes, unless you want to: Dagger 2 tracks scope lifetime via component instance lifetime, so scopes are very easy to add for clarity but are not strictly necessary if you're comfortable with "unscoped" objects. If you have an object graph of true singleton objects, you can also store that component as a conventional (static final field) singleton and generate your ClientSDKComponent as a subcomponent of that longer-lived component. If it's important to your build dependency graph, you can also phrase it the other way, and have your ClientSDKComponent as a standalone component that depends on another #Component.
I have a JAX-RS web service that was generated by Netbeans. There are non-abstract facade classes for the service's endpoints. The persistence context is being injected into the non-abstract facade. Everything is working well and I see my data being returned to Fiddler.
We are using DTOs and I am implementing an assembler pattern. So, in the non-abstract facade's constructor, I am creating an instance of the assembler, and am passing the facade's entity manager instance into it. Unfortunately, it seems that the injection of the persistence context has not happened before the facade's constructor has been called, so I cannot pass the entity manager instance into the assembler for its to use in mapping operations. Kind of a chicken-before-the-end situation... I cannot figure out how to make this work... Is there some kind of post-constructor method that I can override and perform the initialization of the assembler and pass in the entity manager to it? I'd really appreciate your help and suggestions.
Thank you for your time and ideas,
Mike
Use method marked with #PostConstruct annotation. Like this:
#PostConstruct
private void init() {
// I'm called after all injections have been resolved
// initialize some object variables here
...
}
In that method you can use both, object fields initialized in the constructor and passed by injection.