I'm working on setting up Dagger 2 into my android project. It is my first time with this framework and everything goes well so far. But I'm seeing different approaches on the way you can set up this framework in your project and I wonder which one is better, because I compare both and for me the result is kind of the same.
I followed this guide: https://github.com/codepath/android_guides/wiki/Dependency-Injection-with-Dagger-2
Searching on Internet all of them use this approach.
It use @Module and @Component to define the dependencies.
and your application ends up like this:
public class MyApp extends Application {
private NetComponent mNetComponent;
@Override
public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
// Dagger%COMPONENT_NAME%
mNetComponent = DaggerNetComponent.builder()
// list of modules that are part of this component need to be created here too
.appModule(new AppModule(this)) // This also corresponds to the name of your module: %component_name%Module
.netModule(new NetModule("https://api.github.com"))
.build();
// If a Dagger 2 component does not have any constructor arguments for any of its modules,
// then we can use .create() as a shortcut instead:
// mNetComponent = com.codepath.dagger.components.DaggerNetComponent.create();
}
public NetComponent getNetComponent() {
return mNetComponent;
}
}
But I found another way (I haven't tested it):https://google.github.io/dagger/android.html
And It looks like completely different, using different classes and annotations.
It uses something like this:
@Subcomponent(modules = ...)
public interface YourActivitySubcomponent extends AndroidInjector<YourActivity> {
@Subcomponent.Builder
public abstract class Builder extends AndroidInjector.Builder<YourActivity> {}
}
@Module(subcomponents = YourActivitySubcomponent.class)
abstract class YourActivityModule {
@Binds
@IntoMap
@ActivityKey(YourActivity.class)
abstract AndroidInjector.Factory<? extends Activity>
bindYourActivityInjectorFactory(YourActivitySubcomponent.Builder builder);
}
@Component(modules = {..., YourActivityModule.class})
interface YourApplicationComponent {}
public class YourApplication extends Application implements HasDispatchingActivityInjector {
@Inject DispatchingAndroidInjector<Activity> dispatchingActivityInjector;
@Override
public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
DaggerYourApplicationComponent.create()
.inject(this);
}
@Override
public DispatchingAndroidInjector<Activity> activityInjector() {
return dispatchingActivityInjector;
}
}
So, my questions are:
which one is better?
What are the reasons for choosing one approach instead of the other?
The method of setting up Dagger 2 for Android that is now prescribed in official Dagger 2 documentation has a number of advantages and should be preferred. The advantages are just those elaborated there, namely:
Copy-pasting code makes it hard to refactor later on. As more and more developers copy-paste that block, fewer will know what it actually does.
More fundamentally, it requires the type requesting injection (FrombulationActivity) to know about its injector. Even if this is done through interfaces instead of concrete types, it breaks a core principle of dependency injection: a class shouldn’t know anything about how it isinjected.
Let's apply those reasons to your first example.
Reason 1
Assume we have an Activity that wants to use your NetComponent. Let's call it NetActivity. The onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) method of that NetActivity will look something like this:
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
((MyApp) getApplicationContext()).getNetComponent().inject(this);
}
This code has all the visual appeal of toenail clippings scattered on oatmeal (not my simile) and will end up copy-pasted in all of the injection site Activities where you use NetComponent. If you use more complicated components, such as this example from the docs:
@Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
// DO THIS FIRST. Otherwise frombulator might be null!
((SomeApplicationBaseType) getContext().getApplicationContext())
.getApplicationComponent()
.newActivityComponentBuilder()
.activity(this)
.build()
.inject(this);
// ... now you can write the exciting code
}
Even worse. It can easily degenerate into a magical piece of code that must be copied and pasted throughout the injection sites. If it changes, it's easy to forget to update just one site and have your app crash.
Reason 2
One of the great advantages of dependency injection is injection sites need not know or care about their injectors, just as dependencies do not know or care about their dependents. To return to ourNetActivity, we have:
((MyApp) getApplicationContext()).getNetComponent().inject(this);
The Activity "knows" about its injector (NetComponent), and the Activity is now coupled with a concretion MyApp and the method getNetComponent() from the same. If either of these classes changes, NetActivity will have to change as well.
The advantages of following the new way of injection inside Activity and Fragments available in Dagger versions 2.10 and forward are just the opposite of these disadvantages:
- You end up with less copy-paste code
- Types requesting injection no longer have to know or care about their injectors or the sources of their injectors.
Furthermore, as pointed out in this blog, preferring subcomponents over dependent components reduces the method count of your app.
While using subcomponents may initially seem more difficult, there are some clear advantages. However, for the purposes of learning Dagger dependent components may be initially easier to understand. If the second example is too complicated initially, you can graduate to the preferred method when you have gained finesse.
