我问了一个常见的Spring问题:自动转换Spring bean,很多人回答说应该尽可能避免调用Spring的ApplicationContext.getBean()。为什么呢?

我还应该如何访问我配置Spring创建的bean呢?

我在一个非web应用程序中使用Spring,并计划访问LiorH所描述的共享ApplicationContext对象。

修正案

我接受下面的答案,但这里有Martin Fowler的另一种观点,他讨论了依赖注入与使用服务定位器(本质上与调用包装的ApplicationContext.getBean()相同)的优点。

In part, Fowler states, "With service locator the application class asks for it [the service] explicitly by a message to the locator. With injection there is no explicit request, the service appears in the application class - hence the inversion of control. Inversion of control is a common feature of frameworks, but it's something that comes at a price. It tends to be hard to understand and leads to problems when you are trying to debug. So on the whole I prefer to avoid it [Inversion of Control] unless I need it. This isn't to say it's a bad thing, just that I think it needs to justify itself over the more straightforward alternative."


当前回答

的确,在application-context.xml中包含该类可以避免使用getBean。然而,即使这样,实际上也是不必要的。如果你正在编写一个独立的应用程序,并且你不想在application-context.xml中包含你的驱动程序类,你可以使用下面的代码让Spring自动装配驱动程序的依赖项:

public class AutowireThisDriver {

    private MySpringBean mySpringBean;    

    public static void main(String[] args) {
       AutowireThisDriver atd = new AutowireThisDriver(); //get instance

       ClassPathXmlApplicationContext ctx = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext(
                  "/WEB-INF/applicationContext.xml"); //get Spring context 

       //the magic: auto-wire the instance with all its dependencies:
       ctx.getAutowireCapableBeanFactory().autowireBeanProperties(atd,
                  AutowireCapableBeanFactory.AUTOWIRE_BY_TYPE, true);        

       // code that uses mySpringBean ...
       mySpringBean.doStuff() // no need to instantiate - thanks to Spring
    }

    public void setMySpringBean(MySpringBean bean) {
       this.mySpringBean = bean;    
    }
}

当我有一些独立的类需要使用我的应用程序的某些方面(例如测试)时,我需要这样做几次,但我不想将它包含在应用程序上下文中,因为它实际上不是应用程序的一部分。还请注意,这避免了使用字符串名称查找bean的需要,我一直认为这是丑陋的。

其他回答

我只发现了两种需要getBean()的情况:

其他人已经提到在main()中使用getBean()为独立程序获取“主”bean。

我使用getBean()的另一种情况是交互用户配置为特定情况确定bean组成。因此,例如,引导系统的一部分使用带scope='prototype' bean定义的getBean()循环遍历数据库表,然后设置其他属性。据推测,有一种调整数据库表的UI比试图(重新)编写应用程序上下文XML更友好。

其动机是编写不显式依赖Spring的代码。这样,如果您选择切换容器,就不必重写任何代码。

把容器想象成代码看不见的东西,神奇地提供它的需要,而不需要被要求。

依赖注入是“服务定位器”模式的对应。如果您打算按名称查找依赖项,那么您也可以摆脱DI容器,使用JNDI之类的东西。

但是,仍然有一些情况需要使用服务定位器模式。 例如,我有一个控制器bean,这个控制器可能有一些默认的服务bean,这些服务bean可以通过配置注入依赖项。 虽然这个控制器现在或以后还可以调用许多附加的或新的服务,但这些服务需要服务定位器来检索服务bean。

使用@Autowired或ApplicationContext.getBean()实际上是一回事。通过这两种方式,您可以获得在您的上下文中配置的bean,并且通过这两种方式,您的代码都依赖于spring。 你唯一应该避免的是实例化你的ApplicationContext。只做一次!换句话说,一条线就像

ApplicationContext context = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("AppContext.xml");

在应用程序中只应使用一次。

选择服务定位器而不是控制反转(IoC)的原因是:

Service Locator is much, much easier for other people to following in your code. IoC is 'magic' but maintenance programmers must understand your convoluted Spring configurations and all the myriad of locations to figure out how you wired your objects. IoC is terrible for debugging configuration problems. In certain classes of applications the application will not start when misconfigured and you may not get a chance to step through what is going on with a debugger. IoC is primarily XML based (Annotations improve things but there is still a lot of XML out there). That means developers can't work on your program unless they know all the magic tags defined by Spring. It is not good enough to know Java anymore. This hinders less experience programmers (ie. it is actually poor design to use a more complicated solution when a simpler solution, such as Service Locator, will fulfill the same requirements). Plus, support for diagnosing XML problems is far weaker than support for Java problems. Dependency injection is more suited to larger programs. Most of the time the additional complexity is not worth it. Often Spring is used in case you "might want to change the implementation later". There are other ways of achieving this without the complexity of Spring IoC. For web applications (Java EE WARs) the Spring context is effectively bound at compile time (unless you want operators to grub around the context in the exploded war). You can make Spring use property files, but with servlets property files will need to be at a pre-determined location, which means you can't deploy multiple servlets of the same time on the same box. You can use Spring with JNDI to change properties at servlet startup time, but if you are using JNDI for administrator-modifiable parameters the need for Spring itself lessens (since JNDI is effectively a Service Locator). With Spring you can lose program Control if Spring is dispatching to your methods. This is convenient and works for many types of applications, but not all. You may need to control program flow when you need to create tasks (threads etc) during initialization or need modifiable resources that Spring didn't know about when the content was bound to your WAR.

Spring非常适合事务管理,并且有一些优点。只是IoC在许多情况下会过度设计,给维护者带来不必要的复杂性。不要在没有考虑不使用IoC的情况下自动使用它。