I have the following doubt: It's possible, somehow, to access to the pointcut names or to the variables names (of some class) using any method from the AspectJ API?
Related
I would like to write test for a controller class. The controller class takes a service object as constructor parameter. Added the #Inject annotation to the constructor of the service class.
class AssociateService #Inject()(configuration: Configuation){...}
The constructor parameter of the service class is a custom configuration object also created for the application. I added the #Inject to the constructor of the config class as well. Now I'm getting these types of error messages:
No implementation for "className" was bound.
Could not find a suitable constructor in java.lang.Integer. Classes must have either one (and only one) constructor annotated with #Inject or a zero-argument constructor that is not private.
The configuration class has several constructor parameters, those are "basic" types (Int, Boolean) and one parameter is a custom class type (className).
How should I do this binding or is it just enough to annotate something else?
And why it says that constructor error message?
As far as I know, there are two ways with tests and guice, with trade offs:
Don't using field injections, using only constructor injections and fields assignment in constructor for injected parameters. This approach enables very simple solution for testing, just don't use dependency injection in tests. But all your classes must have ability to be created with new operator in test cases...
Ps. You can define optional constructor and use field injections, of course, but it is not very clear solution.
Creating correct module with injectable interfaces binding to its implementations for every test or group of similar tests. Sometimes this approach takes a lot of unnecessary working hours.
You must design your software to maintain testability. Sometimes not every line of code in project need to be tested, sometimes not every code is testable, you must separate it from important parts of your software, that requires testing. If you design your software with single responsibility principe so writing tests is much easer...
Play Framework 2.4 has support for Google Guice Dependency Injection
What is the advantage of using
#Singleton class A
instead of
object A
for singletons?
I can see three advantages of using #Singleton class over object if A has no dependencies:
If you wanted to test A, and declare it as #Singleton class you have the option of subclassing it to mock out some of the functions in your test, whereas this is not possible with an object.
If you use object, it is very tempting for clients of A to reference it directly, leading to a strongly coupled system, but using #Singleton class forces them to think about where A is instantiated, probably leading to a more decoupled design.
If you later change your mind, and allow multiple instances of A, the refactoring will be much easier to do if you chose to use #Singleton class.
If A has dependencies, however, using #Singleton class allows them to be dependency injected on construction, whereas with an object this is only possible if you declare the dependencies as mutable (eg: a var with getter/setter methods) .
I have a library here with some Java classes. One class has some protected static methods, which I realize is sorta an OOP no-no but I can't change its code. Assuming I have a Scala class that subclasses the aforementioned Java class, how can I call its protected static members?
See Frequently Asked Questions - Java Interoperability:
This is a known limitation of Scala:
there is no notion of 'static' members
in Scala. Instead, Scala treats
static members of class Y as members
of the singleton object Y (the
companion object of class Y). When
inheriting from this class, one can
access only protected members of class
Y but cannot access protected members
of object Y.
There's no way Scala can simulate
static protected without impairing the
integrity of Scala's object model in a
fundamental way, so this is not going
to change. To work around this
limitation, one has to create an
implementation of the enclosing class
with Java code which encapsulates all
accesses to the protected static inner
class.
See ticket #1806 for more
information and a concrete example of
the limitation and its workaround.
I've written a Scala trait, named Cache[A,B], to provide a caching API. The Cache has the following methods, asyncGet(), asyncPut(), asyncPutIfAbsent(), asyncRemove().
I'm going to have a few static methods, such as getOrElseUpdate(key: A)(op: => B). I don't want methods like this as abstract defs in the Cache trait because I don't want each Cache implementation to have to provide an implementation for it, when it can be written once using the async*() methods.
In looking at Google Guava and parts of the Java library, they place public static functions in a class that is the plural of the interface name, so "Caches" would be the name I would use.
I like this naming scheme actually, even though I could use a Cache companion object. In looking at much of my code, many of my companion objects contain private val's or def's, so users of my API then need to look through the companion object to see what they can use from there, or anything for that matter.
By having a object named "Caches" is consistent with Java and also makes it clear that there's only public functions in there. I'm leaning towards using "object Caches" instead of "object Cache".
So what do people think?
Scala's traits are not just a different name for Java's interfaces. They may have concrete (implemented) members, both values (val and var) and methods. So if there's a unified / generalized / shared implementation of a method, it can be placed in a trait and need not be replicated or factored into a separate class.
I think the mistake starts with "going to have a few static methods". Why have static methods? If you explain why you need static methods, it will help figure out what the design should be.
Whenever I create an abstract class I tend to create an interface to go along with it and have other code refer to the interface and not the abstract class. Usually when I don't create an interface to start with I regret it (such as having to override all implimented methods to stub the class for unit testing or later down the line new classes don't need any of the implimentation and override everything also finding themselves unable to extend any other class).
At first I tried to distinguish when to use an interface and when to use an abstract class by considering is-a vs able-to but I still would end up suffering later down the line for not making an interface to start with.
So the question is when is it a good idea to only have an abstract class and no interface at all?
When you wish to "give" some base class functionality to derived classes but when this functionality is not sufficient to instantiate a usable class, then go for abstract classes.
When you wish that some classes completely implement a set of methods (a public contract), then it is a convenient to define such contract with interfaces and enforce them onto classes by making them inherit this interface.
In short:
With abstract classes you give some common base functionality to derived classes. No further actions are necessary unless abstract class has some stubs (which have to be implemented down there).
With interfaces you require derived classes to implement a set of functions and you do not pass along any implementation.
So the question is when is it a good idea to only have an abstract class and no interface at all?
When you do not wish to enforce any public contract (a set of methods/properties defined by an interface).
Also when you do not plan to use certain coding techniques like casting object to an interface type (run-time polymorphism) or limit allowed input (some method argument will only accept object of types which implement certain interfaces).
Well, the main case it is useful to have only an abstract class without any interface is to mark a certain type. It is useful to be able to check if an object "is-a" something. These interface "mark" an objet to be of a certain type. Depending on the language you use, different design patterns apply ...
These sort of abstract classes exist in java. You can also use them in C++ with RTTI.
my2c