.png)
The above cartoon is a pretty common occurrence in most engineering and developer teams. Think about it this way: when we build products for our clients, we pay as much attention to what we should not be doing as we do to what we should be doing to create smart, future proofed products.
Besides, in most engineering problems, not paying attention to the “why” can lead to catastrophic codes.
But let’s get straight to the topic, dive deep into the different types of dependency injections for context before we discuss when and why we use one.
1. Field injection
2. Constructor injection
3. Setter injection
Simply put, spring will assign the dependencies directly to the fields, declaring a variable, hopefully private, and then annotating it with @Autowired.
.png)
It’s when you statically define the list of required dependencies by articulating them to the class' constructor. You can let the spring container inject dependencies directly through the constructor with @RestController.
.png)
It is similar to field injection but the setter is annotated with @Autowired tag. It is the kind of injection where the spring framework uses the setter method to inject the dependency.
.png)
1. Field injection uses reflection to set the values of private variables.
2. Constructor injection happens at the time of creating the object itself (and typically all the parameters are well-known).
3. Setter injection uses setters to set the value.
.png)
Constructor injection is always the first choice when it comes to deploying a dependency injection because it’s reliable and strict.
Reliability: Constructor injection is the most reliable of the three because of immutable variables.
Maintainability: Constructor injection helps to identify the list of dependencies and makes the code more readable. In field and setter injections, autowired fields can mix up with regular fields, and therefore make it difficult to track the dependencies of the class.
Testability: In construction injection, it is easy to mock dependencies as they can be passed and removed using the constructor, even without creating Spring Context that enables faster and cleaner tests. While using setter injection, it is easy to mock as mock objects can be set directly. However, it is most challenging to create mock beans for field injections as the shuffling between mock and actual beans is tedious.
Consistency: Constructor injection is most consistent as the whole application uses similar coding and injection patterns. Setter and field injections are less consistent as they can be included anywhere in the code.
Flexibility: Constructor offers the least amount of flexibility as it imposes strict design rules in the code. For setter and field injections, developers can easily add new dependencies, making them more flexible.
Ease of code reviews: When you add a new dependency in constructor injection, developers have to update the constructors in multiple places so that reviewers can easily detect the breaking changes. When using field and setter injections, dependencies are added as a simple field, so reviewers might not even notice them.
Modification of code: In setter and field injections, developers have the freedom to add unlimited new dependencies. Constructor injection is more aligned to the Open-Closed principle of SOLID principles. Any modification to the code for an extension or adding a new feature can be debated, which keeps the overall code cleaner.
Cyclic dependency detection: Cyclic dependencies can be easily detected and fixed in constructor injection, while they are not detected at all in field and setter injections.
Performance: For setter and field injections, each object can be created independently and dependencies are injected later on using reflection, thereby enabling faster launches. However, for constructor injection, beans have to be created in the correct order of dependencies, which increases the time taken to launch the application but ensures that developers have thought their structure through.
Field injections are ideal for scenarios when constructor injection is absolutely unfeasible and circular dependencies have to be avoided, even if it is a work around.
Somethings we consider when deciding between field injection and constructor injection are required and optional dependencies.
1. While many argue that we can use field injection for optional and constructor injection for required dependencies, having optional dependency seems to be already reflective of bad design in most of the cases; it might be worth taking another look at the design itself.
2. Since the scope of an optional dependency is unrestricted, developers can add multiple dependencies by calling it optional, and reduce the quality @ of the overall code.
At Zemoso Labs, we follow the best design and coding principles, ensuring the highest quality of applications every time. This includes rigorous debate within our team members to identify the best possible solution. To learn more about our product engineering solutions, contact us today.
A version of this blog post was earlier published on Medium.
.png)
.png)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.png)
.png)
%20(2).svg)
.svg)
.jpg)
.svg)
The above cartoon is a pretty common occurrence in most engineering and developer teams. Think about it this way: when we build products for our clients, we pay as much attention to what we should not be doing as we do to what we should be doing to create smart, future proofed products.
Besides, in most engineering problems, not paying attention to the “why” can lead to catastrophic codes.
But let’s get straight to the topic, dive deep into the different types of dependency injections for context before we discuss when and why we use one.
1. Field injection
2. Constructor injection
3. Setter injection
Simply put, spring will assign the dependencies directly to the fields, declaring a variable, hopefully private, and then annotating it with @Autowired.
It’s when you statically define the list of required dependencies by articulating them to the class' constructor. You can let the spring container inject dependencies directly through the constructor with @RestController.
It is similar to field injection but the setter is annotated with @Autowired tag. It is the kind of injection where the spring framework uses the setter method to inject the dependency.
1. Field injection uses reflection to set the values of private variables.
2. Constructor injection happens at the time of creating the object itself (and typically all the parameters are well-known).
3. Setter injection uses setters to set the value.
Constructor injection is always the first choice when it comes to deploying a dependency injection because it’s reliable and strict.
Reliability: Constructor injection is the most reliable of the three because of immutable variables.
Maintainability: Constructor injection helps to identify the list of dependencies and makes the code more readable. In field and setter injections, autowired fields can mix up with regular fields, and therefore make it difficult to track the dependencies of the class.
Testability: In construction injection, it is easy to mock dependencies as they can be passed and removed using the constructor, even without creating Spring Context that enables faster and cleaner tests. While using setter injection, it is easy to mock as mock objects can be set directly. However, it is most challenging to create mock beans for field injections as the shuffling between mock and actual beans is tedious.
Consistency: Constructor injection is most consistent as the whole application uses similar coding and injection patterns. Setter and field injections are less consistent as they can be included anywhere in the code.
Flexibility: Constructor offers the least amount of flexibility as it imposes strict design rules in the code. For setter and field injections, developers can easily add new dependencies, making them more flexible.
Ease of code reviews: When you add a new dependency in constructor injection, developers have to update the constructors in multiple places so that reviewers can easily detect the breaking changes. When using field and setter injections, dependencies are added as a simple field, so reviewers might not even notice them.
Modification of code: In setter and field injections, developers have the freedom to add unlimited new dependencies. Constructor injection is more aligned to the Open-Closed principle of SOLID principles. Any modification to the code for an extension or adding a new feature can be debated, which keeps the overall code cleaner.
Cyclic dependency detection: Cyclic dependencies can be easily detected and fixed in constructor injection, while they are not detected at all in field and setter injections.
Performance: For setter and field injections, each object can be created independently and dependencies are injected later on using reflection, thereby enabling faster launches. However, for constructor injection, beans have to be created in the correct order of dependencies, which increases the time taken to launch the application but ensures that developers have thought their structure through.
Field injections are ideal for scenarios when constructor injection is absolutely unfeasible and circular dependencies have to be avoided, even if it is a work around.
Somethings we consider when deciding between field injection and constructor injection are required and optional dependencies.
1. While many argue that we can use field injection for optional and constructor injection for required dependencies, having optional dependency seems to be already reflective of bad design in most of the cases; it might be worth taking another look at the design itself.
2. Since the scope of an optional dependency is unrestricted, developers can add multiple dependencies by calling it optional, and reduce the quality @ of the overall code.
At Zemoso Labs, we follow the best design and coding principles, ensuring the highest quality of applications every time. This includes rigorous debate within our team members to identify the best possible solution. To learn more about our product engineering solutions, contact us today.
A version of this blog post was earlier published on Medium.
The above cartoon is a pretty common occurrence in most engineering and developer teams. Think about it this way: when we build products for our clients, we pay as much attention to what we should not be doing as we do to what we should be doing to create smart, future proofed products.
Besides, in most engineering problems, not paying attention to the “why” can lead to catastrophic codes.
But let’s get straight to the topic, dive deep into the different types of dependency injections for context before we discuss when and why we use one.
1. Field injection
2. Constructor injection
3. Setter injection
Simply put, spring will assign the dependencies directly to the fields, declaring a variable, hopefully private, and then annotating it with @Autowired.
It’s when you statically define the list of required dependencies by articulating them to the class' constructor. You can let the spring container inject dependencies directly through the constructor with @RestController.
It is similar to field injection but the setter is annotated with @Autowired tag. It is the kind of injection where the spring framework uses the setter method to inject the dependency.
1. Field injection uses reflection to set the values of private variables.
2. Constructor injection happens at the time of creating the object itself (and typically all the parameters are well-known).
3. Setter injection uses setters to set the value.
Constructor injection is always the first choice when it comes to deploying a dependency injection because it’s reliable and strict.
Reliability: Constructor injection is the most reliable of the three because of immutable variables.
Maintainability: Constructor injection helps to identify the list of dependencies and makes the code more readable. In field and setter injections, autowired fields can mix up with regular fields, and therefore make it difficult to track the dependencies of the class.
Testability: In construction injection, it is easy to mock dependencies as they can be passed and removed using the constructor, even without creating Spring Context that enables faster and cleaner tests. While using setter injection, it is easy to mock as mock objects can be set directly. However, it is most challenging to create mock beans for field injections as the shuffling between mock and actual beans is tedious.
Consistency: Constructor injection is most consistent as the whole application uses similar coding and injection patterns. Setter and field injections are less consistent as they can be included anywhere in the code.
Flexibility: Constructor offers the least amount of flexibility as it imposes strict design rules in the code. For setter and field injections, developers can easily add new dependencies, making them more flexible.
Ease of code reviews: When you add a new dependency in constructor injection, developers have to update the constructors in multiple places so that reviewers can easily detect the breaking changes. When using field and setter injections, dependencies are added as a simple field, so reviewers might not even notice them.
Modification of code: In setter and field injections, developers have the freedom to add unlimited new dependencies. Constructor injection is more aligned to the Open-Closed principle of SOLID principles. Any modification to the code for an extension or adding a new feature can be debated, which keeps the overall code cleaner.
Cyclic dependency detection: Cyclic dependencies can be easily detected and fixed in constructor injection, while they are not detected at all in field and setter injections.
Performance: For setter and field injections, each object can be created independently and dependencies are injected later on using reflection, thereby enabling faster launches. However, for constructor injection, beans have to be created in the correct order of dependencies, which increases the time taken to launch the application but ensures that developers have thought their structure through.
Field injections are ideal for scenarios when constructor injection is absolutely unfeasible and circular dependencies have to be avoided, even if it is a work around.
Somethings we consider when deciding between field injection and constructor injection are required and optional dependencies.
1. While many argue that we can use field injection for optional and constructor injection for required dependencies, having optional dependency seems to be already reflective of bad design in most of the cases; it might be worth taking another look at the design itself.
2. Since the scope of an optional dependency is unrestricted, developers can add multiple dependencies by calling it optional, and reduce the quality @ of the overall code.
At Zemoso Labs, we follow the best design and coding principles, ensuring the highest quality of applications every time. This includes rigorous debate within our team members to identify the best possible solution. To learn more about our product engineering solutions, contact us today.
A version of this blog post was earlier published on Medium.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
