Spring DI with different styles

Spring as a dependency injection (DI) framework allows us to define our application components' dependency tree in three different ways: XML Annotation Java Config I've written a simple app, bookstore, with the three styles and they're available in the following repository. You can take a look and see how each style would look like. It also has a version that uses no Spring beans for comparison. https://github.com/ryu1kn/spring--working-with-beans Different styles have different pros/cons. Spring lets you mix the styles; so you can change it as you go. Here is my observations on each style. XML-based configuration Pros Weak/loose coupling with Spring framework in your app code. Good for keeping the option of removing Spring later Class dependency information is centralised. Fine-grained control on the dependency definition. Changing only the dependency information doesn't require the recompilation of your app code. Cons Unless you have a good IDE

Clojure Way

  • Do I have to use partial to do currying?

  • Do I have to do an explicit null check? e.g. html-node below can be null.

    (-> html-node (.getTextNode) (.getLiteral))
    
    • Seems so.

      (if html-node (-> html-node (.getTextNode) (.getLiteral)) "")
      
      ; or
      
      (#(if % (-> % (.getTextNode) (.getLiteral)) "") html-node)
      

      cf. in Scala:

      htmlNode.map(_.getTextNode.getLiteral).getOrElse("")
      
  • Can I compose a function from a Java object method with only its method name?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Spring DI with different styles

Use Blogger API from its Java client

Vim + Syntastic + JSHint