I'm refactoring a project and on one of the services I found this piece of code:
@Service
public class MyService {
private String API_PORT;
public JenkinsService(final Environment environment) {
this.API_PORT = environment.getProperty("server.port");
}
}
My doubt is if I can change it to the following code (Using @Value) without unexpected behavior:
@Service
public class MyService {
@Value("${server.port}")
private String API_PORT;
public JenkinsService() {}
}
Environment expose all properties, you generally don't want that.
Besides, it exposes also information about profiles (distinguishing which activated and all) which here you don't care.
Property placeholder ${...} should always be favored to injecting Environment instance but for fair reasons as stated by the Environment javadoc (emphasis is mine) :
In most cases, however, application-level beans should not need to interact with the Environment directly but instead may have to have ${...} property values replaced by a property placeholder configurer such as PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer, which itself is EnvironmentAware and as of Spring 3.1 is registered by default when using .
And not directly your question, but constructor injection should be favored over field injection that encourages opaque and flawed design :
public class MyService {
private final String apiPort;
public MyService (@Value("${server.port}") String apiPort){
this.apiPort = apiPort;
}
}