It took me a hot moment to adjust after leaving classic spring Java land to a Scala shop that doesn’t use DI framework, but now I love it. I agree with what you said.
It does help to keep services small so the manual DI arg passing doesn’t get too spread out and boilerplate-y. But I have worked on a dozen services here and don’t miss an automatic DI framework.
> Calling a constructor is DI. ‘new’ is the only DI framework required.
This feels like the sane thing to do, but sadly for historical reasons this won't work with many (if not the most) Java frameworks out there, or even certain options in the .NET ecosystem.
When you get non-trivial frameworks that are deeply entrenched in having DI and using it internally for a bunch of stuff, you'll find yourself out of options, e.g. if you use Spring/Spring Boot.
And in many places something like Spring Boot might be considered an "industry standard" and you might get looked at funny if you suggested using another framework, even more so if they have their own configuration/plugin/utility solutions for it already built within the org.
Personally, however, I rather enjoy alternative takes on how web frameworks could look and even something like Dropwizard/Vert.X/Quarkus have nice quality of life aspects to them.
In a sense, it's nice that the industry is moving towards smaller service based architectures, where you might spin up a new service with whatever tech fits the problem that you're trying to solve, as opposed to being locked into adding code on top of some bloated monolith (though that comes with certain tradeoffs and drawbacks, in regards to complexity and maintenance).
I have a few questions about this approach, cards on the table I mainly deal in C# where DI (through the framework) is the default. How do you manage the initialization of all of the dependencies? Do you need some sort of "root" where everything is initialized and passed in? That was all I could come up with while keeping it testable and that doesn't sound maintainable once you build up the number of dependencies.
When I switched from Java to Go and started doing DI like this, I was amazed at how simple and efficient DI could be. I was taught DI with Spring and never fully grasped why and how it worked. With Go it just clicked and to this day I still have no idea why DI libs are so complicated. If I ever come back to Java, I’ll make sure to do DI manually.
erpellan|3 years ago
Benefits:
Unbelievably fast startup time
No magic
No annotations, XML or YAML required
No classpath scanning related security vulnerabilities
Conpletely deterministic
In no other language is ‘calling a constructor’ considered so complicated a framework is required.
Try it!
therealdrag0|3 years ago
It does help to keep services small so the manual DI arg passing doesn’t get too spread out and boilerplate-y. But I have worked on a dozen services here and don’t miss an automatic DI framework.
KronisLV|3 years ago
This feels like the sane thing to do, but sadly for historical reasons this won't work with many (if not the most) Java frameworks out there, or even certain options in the .NET ecosystem.
When you get non-trivial frameworks that are deeply entrenched in having DI and using it internally for a bunch of stuff, you'll find yourself out of options, e.g. if you use Spring/Spring Boot.
And in many places something like Spring Boot might be considered an "industry standard" and you might get looked at funny if you suggested using another framework, even more so if they have their own configuration/plugin/utility solutions for it already built within the org.
Personally, however, I rather enjoy alternative takes on how web frameworks could look and even something like Dropwizard/Vert.X/Quarkus have nice quality of life aspects to them.
In a sense, it's nice that the industry is moving towards smaller service based architectures, where you might spin up a new service with whatever tech fits the problem that you're trying to solve, as opposed to being locked into adding code on top of some bloated monolith (though that comes with certain tradeoffs and drawbacks, in regards to complexity and maintenance).
coverj|3 years ago
thiht|3 years ago