In Spring about AOP/AspectJ exists the MethodInterceptor interface. It is used internally to decide if an #Aspect class must be called or not - really an advice method - according with a pointcut.
About its implementations exists (see the former link):
AspectJAfterAdvice
AspectJAfterThrowingAdvice
AspectJAroundAdvice
Question
What is the reason or Why does not exist the AspectJBeforeAdvice class?
This is not meant to be a conclusive answer, because I cannot speak for the Spring AOP team or speculate more than just a little bit about their design goals and motives. Insofar, this question is not a good fit for Stack Overflow, because it does not present a programming problem to be solved by a correct answer.
Anyway, actually it seems that the AOP Alliance's MethodInterceptor interface is not implemented for before advice types. Either it is not necessary or was an oversight. I think, however, that Spring AOP mostly revolves around the Advice interface and, where necessary, its subinterfaces BeforeAdvice and AfterAdvice. Moreover, all concrete advice types extend AbstractAspectJAdvice. This is a screenshot from my IDE:
Please note on the bottom of the picture, that MethodInterceptor itself extends Interceptor, which again intercepts Advice. So, Advice is the common denominator for all advice types, no matter if they are also MethodInterceptors or not.
Related
What is the default advice kind when using <aop:advisor>? Is it around or something else? I did not find much information in docs. Any link to more information? Thanks.
Well, as the documentation says here:
The advice itself is represented by a bean, and must implement one of the advice interfaces described in Advice types in Spring.
Thus, it is your own choice which type of advice you want to implement in your advisor. It can be any of
around,
before,
after returning,
throws,
introduction.
I'm starting to develop website that use the spring framework.I have three controller.There are newCustomerController,editCustomerController and deleteCustomerController.These controllers are mapped with view that use for create update and delete, but I create only customer.
So, I would like to know.Is it appropriate to declare the controllers like this.
Thank
The answer to this question is subjective and maybe more a topic for https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/. However, there is something very spring related about it that I would like to comment.
There are a few principles that attempt at guiding developers of how to strike a good balance when thinking about designing the classes. One of those is the Single responsibility principle.
In object-oriented programming, the single responsibility principle
states that every class should have a single responsibility, and that
responsibility should be entirely encapsulated by the class. All its
services should be narrowly aligned with that responsibility
A catchier explanation is
A class or module should have one, and only one, reason to change.
However, its still often hard to reason about it properly.
Nevertheless, Spring gives you means for it (think of this statement as a poetic freedom of interpretation). Embrace constructor based dependency injection. There are quite a few reasons why you should consider constructor based dependency injection, but the part relevent to your question is adressed in the quote from the blog
An often faced argument I get is: “Constructors just get too verbose
if I have 6 or 7 dependencies. With fields only, this is fine”.
Awesome, you’ve effectively worked around a clear indicator that the
code you write is doing way too much. An increase in the number of
dependencies a type has should hurt, as it makes you think about
whether you should split up the component into multiple ones.
In other words, if you stick to constructor based injection, and your constructor turns a bit ugly, the class is most likely doing too much and you should consider redesigning.
The same works the other way around, if your operations are a part of the logical whole (like CRUD operations), and they use the same dependencies (now "measurable" by the count and the type of the injected deps) with no clear ideas of what can cause the operations to evolve independently of each other, than no reason to split to separate classes/components.
It should be better if you define one controller for Customer class and in that class you should have all methods related to customer operations (edit,delete,create and read).
When implementing a custom SessionSecurityTokenCache, is it better to extend/override SessionSecurityTokenCache or to implement ITokenCacheRepository? And why?
I have working examples of both and though there are a few minor differences (different method signatures, Get() on an ITokenCacheRepository implementation is requested less frequently than when overriding Get() on SessionSecurityTokenCache), they seem to do roughly the same thing. There is quite a lot of conflicting documentation out there, so am not sure which route to take with this.
Thanks
After a bit more reading on this, I found more info here which hints at when to derive from SessionSecurityTokenCache.
For web based scenarios (as opposed to the WCF-based scenarios) we can derive from PassiveRepositorySessionSecurityTokenCache. It allows for a simpler custom implementation because there are some methods of the WIF SessionSecurityTokenCache base class that aren't needed in web-based scenarios.
I would like my first Aspect in a Roo project to run the advice when a web controller starts up. But I cant get the pointcut to match.
The controllers have a class name starting Cfx. I have tried with the following form:
pointcut setBrand() : initialization(Cfx*.new (..));
before() : setBrand()
{
log.info("xxxxxxxxxxxx setting brand");
}
As well as "initialization" I have tried (from the book AspectJ Cookbook) call(Signature) with new keyword, preinitialization, staticinitialization. What is the formula?
Maybe this is related - the Roo aspects do not have this form - no pointcut for example. How are they working? Where is this documented?
Thanks
PS apologies, this is a re-post. I posted this to the Spring Roo forum but got no response. http://forum.springsource.org/showthread.php?129374-Aspect-to-trap-Controller-creation-how-to
I know next to nothing about Roo or Spring, but some AspectJ, so I am going to answer your question from an AspectJ perspective only, assuming that you are an AOP newbie (sorry if my assumption is incorrect):
If you want to do something when a class is loaded, use a staticinitialization(TypePat) pointcut.
If you want to do something when an object (instance) is created, use something like execution(ConstructorPat). The initialization is for special purposes and preinitialization is needed even more rarely. I am assuming that the first one will do for you, not knowing your exact purpose.
Further assuming that something like execution(Cfx*.new (..)) is basically the thing you want, I suggest you look at possible errors or warnings like "advice defined in ... has not been applied [Xlint:adviceDidNotMatch]", because it might just be a pointcut matching issue. Please note that the type pattern you use assumes the matched constructors are in the same package as the aspect and that they have standard visibility (not public or anything else). So unless there is a class-loading issue, maybe you just want to specify more exactly (or more generally) what you want to match. Examples:
com.bigboxco.my_app.Cfx*.new(..)
com.bigboxco..Cfx*.new(..)
public com.bigboxco..Cfx*.new(..)
!private com.bigboxco..Cfx*.new(..)
* com.bigboxco..Cfx*.new(..)
A good strategy could be trying to match one of your constructors by replicating its exact signature and using its fully qualified class name, then working on from that point to make it more general.
Update: I know you can do a web search by yourself, but anyway here are some useful links:
AspectJ quick reference
AspectJ language semantics with topics about signatures, matching etc.
In Spring MVC, one can define interceptors that can perform work before and after a particular controller is invoked. This can be used, for example, to do logging, authentication etc.
The programmer who wishes to write a custom interceptor is supposed to implement the HandlerInterceptor interface. To aid this task, the HandlerInterceptorAdaptor abstract base class has been provided, which provides default implementations of all the methods specified in the interface. So, if just wants to do some pre processing, one can just extend HandlerInterceptorAdaptor and #Override public boolean preHandle(...), and not worry about implementing the postHandle function.
My doubt concerns the name. From what I understand of the Adapter pattern, it adapts syntactic impedance mismatches between interfaces.
Is that so? If yes, should the class providing the boilerplate implementations be called HandlerInterceptorDefaultImpl, or something along those lines?
Is there a different nomenclature/pattern for what is happening here?
Is the fact that we need a boilerplate class a code smell, and could be removed by refactoring the HandlerInterceptor interface into two: HandlerPreInterceptor and HandlerPostInterceptor? Or is that overkill?
From GOF book about the Adapter pattern:
Adapters vary in the amount of work they do to adapt Adaptee to the Target Interface. There is a spectrum of possible work, from simple interface conversion-for example,changing the names of operations-to supporting an entirely different set of operations. The amount of work Adapter does depends on how similar the Target interface is to Adaptee's.
The boilerplate class that you are referring to is called skeletal implementation class. This is mentioned in Effective Java by Joshua Bloch. From the book:
You can combine the virtues of interfaces and abstract classes by providing an abstract skeletal implementation class to go with each nontrivial interface that you export. The interface still defines the type, but the skeletal implementation takes all of the work out of implementing it.
By convention, skeletal implementations are called AbstractInterface, where Interface is the name of the interface they implement. For example, the Collections Framework provides a skeletal implementation to go along with each main collection interface: AbstractCollection, AbstractSet, AbstractList, and
AbstractMap. Arguably it would have made sense to call them SkeletalCollection, SkeletalSet, SkeletalList, and SkeletalMap, but the Abstract convention is now firmly established.