jueves, 9 de febrero de 2017
miércoles, 8 de febrero de 2017
martes, 24 de enero de 2017
Any application is composed of many objects that collaborate with each other to perform some useful stuff. Traditionally each object is responsible for obtaining its own references to the dependent objects (dependencies) it collaborate with. This leads to highly coupled classes and hard-to-test code.
For example, consider a object.
A depends on wheels, engine, fuel, battery, etc. to run. Traditionally we define the brand of such dependent objects along with the definition of the object.
Here, the object
What if we want to change the type of its dependent object - say - after the initial punctures? We need to recreate the Car object with its new dependency say , but only the manufacturer can do that.
When using dependency injection, objects are given their dependencies . So that we can now change the whenever we want. Here, the () can be injected into at run time.
Here, we are the (Wheel and Battery) at runtime. Hence the term :
En informática, inyección de dependencias (en inglés Dependency Injection, DI) es un patrón de diseño orientado a objetos, en el que se suministran objetos a una clase en lugar de ser la propia clase quien cree el objeto. El término fue acuñado por primera vez por Martin Fowler.
En los comienzos de la programación, los programas eran lineales y monolíticos. El flujo de ejecución era simple y predecible, ejecutándose línea tras línea.
Aparecieron dos conceptos para estructurar el código: la modularidad y la reutilización de los componentes: se crean bibliotecas de componentes reutilizables. El flujo se complica, saltando de componente a componente, y aparece un nuevo problema: la dependencia (acoplamiento) entre los componentes.
El problema de la dependencia se empieza a considerar lo suficientemente importante como para definir nuevos conceptos en el diseño :
· Inversión de control (IoC).
· Inyección de Dependencias (DI), que es una forma de inversión de control.
La forma habitual de implementar este patrón es mediante un "Contenedor DI" y objetos planos o simples por ejemplo los llamados POJO en java. El contenedor inyecta a cada objeto los objetos necesarios según las relaciones plasmadas en un fichero de configuración.
Típicamente este contenedor es implementado por un framework externo a la aplicación (como Spring entre otros), por lo cual en la aplicación también se utilizará inversión de control al ser el contenedor (almacenado en una biblioteca) quien invoque el código de la aplicación. Ésta es la razón por la que los términos de inversión de control e inyección de dependencias se confunden habitualmente entre sí.
El siguiente ejemplo muestra una implementación sin inyección de dependencias.
La implementación de arriba necesita crear una instancia de Motor para calcular su velocidad. El siguiente ejemplo sencillo muestra una implementación usando inyección de dependencias.
En este ejemplo VehiculoFactory representa al proveedor. Es una aplicación sencilla del patrón de diseño fábrica que hace posible que la clase Vehículo no requiera saber cómo obtener un motor por sí misma, sino que es la responsabilidad de VehiculoFactory.
Basically, instead of having your objects creating a dependency or asking a factory object to make one for them, you pass the needed dependencies in to the constructor or via property setters, and you make it somebody else's problem (an object further up the dependency graph, or a dependency injector that builds the dependency graph). A dependency as I'm using it here is any other object the current object needs to hold a reference to.
One of the major advantages of dependency injection is that it can make testing lots easier. Suppose you have an object which in its constructor does something like:
This can be troublesome when all you want to do is run some unit tests on SomeClass, especially if myObject is something that does complex disk or network access. So now you're looking at mocking myObject but also somehow intercepting the factory call. Hard. Instead, pass the object in as an argument to the constructor. Now you've moved the problem elsewhere, but testing can become lots easier. Just make a dummy myObject and pass that in. The constructor would now look a bit like:
Most people can probably work out the other problems that might arise when not using dependency injection while testing (like classes that do too much work in their constructors etc.) Most of this is stuff I picked up on the , to be perfectly honest...
"Dependency Injection" is a 25-dollar term for a 5-cent concept. [...] Dependency injection means giving an object its instance variables. [...].
Dependency injection is basically providing the objects that an object needs (its dependencies) instead of having it construct them itself. It's a very useful technique for testing, since it allows dependencies to be mocked or stubbed out.
Dependencies can be injected into objects by many means (such as constructor injection or setter injection). One can even use specialized dependency injection frameworks (e.g Spring) to do that, but they certainly aren't required. You don't need those frameworks to have dependency injection. Instantiating and passing objects (dependencies) explicitly is just as good an injection as injection by framework.
Dependency injection separates the creation of a client's dependencies from the client's behavior, which allows program designs to be loosely coupled and to follow the dependency inversion and single responsibility principles. It directly contrasts with the service locator pattern, which allows clients to know about the system they use to find dependencies.
An injection, the basic unit of dependency injection, is not a new or a custom mechanism. It works in the same way that "parameter passing" works. Referring to "parameter passing" as an injection carries the added implication that it's being done to isolate the client from details.
An injection is also about what is in control of the passing (never the client) and is independent of how the passing is accomplished, whether by passing a reference or a value.
Dependency injection involves four roles:
· the service object(s) to be used
· the client object that is depending on the services it uses
· the interfaces that define how the client may use the services
· the injector, which is responsible for constructing the services and injecting them into the client
Any object that may be used can be considered a service. Any object that uses other objects can be considered a client. The names have nothing to do with what the objects are for and everything to do with the role the objects play in any one injection.
The interfaces are the types the client expects its dependencies to be. At issue is what they make accessible. They may truly be interface types implemented by the services but also may be abstract classes or even the concrete services themselves, though this last would violate DIP and sacrifice the dynamic decoupling that enables testing. It's only required that the client does not know which they are and therefore never treats them as concrete, say by constructing or extending them.
The client should have no concrete knowledge of the specific implementation of its dependencies. It should only know the interface's name and API. As a result, the client won't need to change even if what is behind the interface changes. However, if the interface is refactored from being a class to an interface type (or vice versa) the client will need to be recompiled. This is significant if the client and services are published separately. This unfortunate coupling is one that dependency injection cannot resolve.
The injector introduces the services into the client. Often, it also constructs the client. An injector may connect together a very complex object graph by treating an object like a client and later as a service for another client. The injector may actually be many objects working together but may not be the client. The injector may be referred to by other names such as: assembler, provider, container, factory, builder, spring, construction code, or main.
Dependency injection can be applied as a discipline, one that asks that all objects separate construction and behavior. Relying on a DI framework to perform construction can lead to forbidding the use of the new keyword, or, less strictly, only allow direct construction of value objects.
Inversion of control (IoC) is more general than DI. Put simply, IoC means letting other code call you rather than insisting on doing the calling. An example of IoC without DI is the template method pattern. Here polymorphism is achieved through subclassing, that is, inheritance.
Dependency injection implements IoC through composition so is often identical to that of the strategy pattern, but while the strategy pattern is intended for dependencies to be interchangeable throughout an object's lifetime, in dependency injection it may be that only a single instance of a dependency is used. This still achieves polymorphism, but through delegation and composition.
Dependency injection frameworks
Application frameworks such as Spring, Guice, Play framework, Salta, Glassfish HK2, and Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) support dependency injection but are not required to do dependency injection.
· Dependency injection allows a client the flexibility of being configurable. Only the client's behavior is fixed. The client may act on anything that supports the intrinsic interface the client expects.
· Dependency injection can be used to externalize a system's configuration details into configuration files allowing the system to be reconfigured without recompilation. Separate configurations can be written for different situations that require different implementations of components. This includes, but is not limited to, testing.
· Because dependency injection doesn't require any change in code behavior it can be applied to legacy code as a refactoring. The result is clients that are more independent and that are easier to unit test in isolation using stubs or mock objects that simulate other objects not under test. This ease of testing is often the first benefit noticed when using dependency injection.
· Dependency injection allows a client to remove all knowledge of a concrete implementation that it needs to use. This helps isolate the client from the impact of design changes and defects. It promotes reusability, testability and maintainability.
· Reduction of boilerplate code in the application objects, since all work to initialize or set up dependencies is handled by a provider component.
· Dependency injection allows concurrent or independent development. Two developers can independently develop classes that use each other, while only needing to know the interface the classes will communicate through. Plugins are often developed by third party shops that never even talk to the developers who created the product that uses the plugins.
· Dependency injection creates clients that demand configuration details be supplied by construction code. This can be onerous when obvious defaults are available.
· Dependency injection can make code difficult to trace (read) because it separates behavior from construction. This means developers must refer to more files to follow how a system performs.
· Dependency injection typically requires more upfront development effort since one can not summon into being something right when and where it is needed but must ask that it be injected and then ensure that it has been injected.
· Dependency injection can cause an explosion of types, especially in languages that have explicit interface types, like Java and C# 
· Dependency injection forces complexity to move out of classes and into the linkages between classes which might not always be desirable or easily managed.
· Ironically, dependency injection can encourage dependence on a dependency injection framework.
Without dependency injection
In the following Java example, the Client class contains a Service member variable that is initialized by the Client constructor. The client controls which implementation of service is used and controls its construction. In this situation, the client is said to have a hard-coded dependency on ServiceExample.
Dependency injection is an alternative technique to initialize the member variable rather than explicitly creating a service object as shown above.
Three types of dependency injection
There are at least three ways an object can receive a reference to an external module:
· constructor injection: the dependencies are provided through a class constructor.
· setter injection: the client exposes a setter method that the injector uses to inject the dependency.
· interface injection: the dependency provides an injector method that will inject the dependency into any client passed to it. Clients must implement an interface that exposes a setter method that accepts the dependency.
It is possible for DI frameworks to have other types of injection beyond those presented above.
Testing frameworks may also use other types. Some modern testing frameworks do not even require that clients actively accept dependency injection thus making legacy code testable. In particular, in the Java language it is possible to use reflection to make private attributes public when testing and thus accept injections by assignment.
Some attempts at Inversion of Control do not provide full removal of dependency but instead simply substitute one form of dependency for another. As a rule of thumb, if a programmer can look at nothing but the client code and tell what framework is being used, then the client has a hard-coded dependency on the framework.
This method requires the client to provide a parameter in a constructor for the dependency.
This method requires the client to provide a setter method for the dependency.
This is simply the client publishing a role interface to the setter methods of the client's dependencies. It can be used to establish how the injector should talk to the client when injecting dependencies.
Constructor injection comparison
Preferred when all dependencies can be constructed first because it can be used to ensure the client object is always in a valid state, as opposed to having some of its dependency references be null (not be set). However, on its own, it lacks the flexibility to have its dependencies changed later. This can be a first step towards making the client immutable and therefore thread safe.
Setter injection comparison
Requires the client to provide a setter method for each dependency. This gives the freedom to manipulate the state of the dependency references at any time. This offers flexibility, but if there is more than one dependency to be injected, it is difficult for the client to ensure that all dependencies are injected before the client could be provided for use.
Because these injections happen independently there is no way to tell when the injector is finished wiring the client. A dependency can be left null simply by the injector failing to call its setter. This forces the check that injection was completed from when the client is assembled to whenever it is used.