Should one define a variable with new() in a class or should one inject it

Hi,
I have a class :
public class AuthenticationManager {

    private static final Logger _logger = LoggerFactory.getTrimmer(AuthenticationManager.class.getSimpleName());
    private final List<Listener> _listeners = new ArrayList<Listener>();
    private boolean _verificationInProgress = false;
    private final CallStateReceiver callStateReceiver = new CallStateReceiver();


I was wondering is it a good practice to have the line :
    private final CallStateReceiver callStateReceiver = new CallStateReceiver();

or should one chnage it to private final CallStateReceiver callStateReceiver ; and get it set from outside ?

What way can we define this ?

Thanks
Rohit BajajAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
käµfm³d 👽Connect With a Mentor Commented:
If you instantiate the object directly within the class, then you introduce a dependency on the "new" object within the class. This means your class is tightly coupled with your "new" object. A more flexible design, as you've mentioned, would be to inject the instantiated object into the class, either via the constructor or a method. Even better, you might define an interface that lays out the minimum criteria that your class expects from an object. Then you work with the interface type internally. You don't have to know what kind of object you actually have as you know what to expect from your object. In this way, different callers can have different object types, but they can each still work with your class because they each meet the minimum criteria set forth by your interface definition.
0
 
Amitkumar PSr. ConsultantCommented:
Agree with kaufmed.

If you instantiate the object inside the class, your code is tightly coupled and dependent on the objects created using new(). Best approach is, as suggested by kaufmed, to provide the objects from outside.

Consider a case in future if you have another flavor of CallStateReceiver (say MyCallStateReceiver) and you want to use it in place of CallStateReceiver. How will you do it ? It is not possible if you instantiate the object inside the class, you will need to have mechanism (ie. setter or constructor) where objects can be provided outside the class.

Hope the explains.
0
 
Rohit BajajAuthor Commented:
HI,
I did not understand the point -
Consider a case in future if you have another flavor of CallStateReceiver (say MyCallStateReceiver) and you want to use it in place of CallStateReceiver. How will you do it ? It is not possible

MyCallStateReceiver will also have the object inside it.. how is it not possible. please clarify exactly what you mean.

thanks
0
 
Rohit BajajAuthor Commented:
Hi,
Can you please give an example of :
 Even better, you might define an interface that lays out the minimum criteria that your class expects from an object.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.