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:

  • Can I compose a function from a Java object method with only its method name?


Popular posts from this blog

Spring DI with different styles

Use Blogger API from its Java client

Leverage shell commands to quickly edit text on Visual Studio Code