Is there a better suggestion on how DAO files should be named?
There are two options below which should I prefer
UserDAO.java?
UserDao.java?
Related
Last year when I started learning spring I remember an article that expalined that not all pojos are to be defined as beans. So I'm planning to create a web app say EmployeeMaintenance. CRUD Functionalities are there. I will surely end up creating pojos like Employee , EmployeeSupplementaryDetails, Address etc. Should I makes these beans and configure them in xml or annotate whatever. I'm sure my understanding of bean is not enough. I know that Dbconn , services etc should definitely be declared as bean.
All I need is what are the parameters I should consider before I make a pojo a Spring Bean.
General rule for making Java class a Spring bean is to ask yourself if you need to inject object into some other object or if you want the object to be managed by Spring components. The classes you listed as example doesn't seem to be good candidates for being Spring beans - they represent model data and will be passed as some service's methods parameters.
Examples of typical CRUD application beans:
EmployeeService (you would want to inject it to controller or other service)
EmployeeRepository / EmployeeDao
EmployeeController (it will be bean managed by Spring's MVC framework)
etc.
Spring beans are building blocks of your application. Let's suppose you need to create web application for storing and managing employees records (creating, retrieving, updating, deleting). What you will need is web controller that will handle incoming requests for several operations (EmployeeController). Good practice is that controller doesn't implement any business logic - all it should do is to delegate work to service beans. So you would need bean like EmployeeService. Then controller would ask service to do some work (give me employees list / remove John Smith from database / change salary for Ann Jackson / etc). So service will be controller's dependency (service is injected into controller). Service can also have some dependencies (like repository object, which is responsible for handling communication with data storage) and these dependencies would be injected to service. Dependency management is Spring's core feature.
Good practice in object oriented programming is to have small classes that are responsible for doing one kind of actions. Such objects are much easier to test and understand. The more classes you have, the building application from blocks is harder, so it's worth to delegate it to framework like Spring. Without Spring you would need to create controller class, then inside of it create service, then inside of it create other dependencies and so on. Spring does it for you, so all you need to do is to declare dependencies and they will be injected automatically. If you want to replace implementation of your service with another (for example repository that used XML file for storing data with repository storing data in relational database) then you just have to change your bean definition.
Regarding to beans managed by Spring, typical example is database transaction manager (eg. org.springframework.orm.jpa.JpaTransactionManager). If you define such bean, and declare which methods should be transactional, then Spring will take care of transactions management (will open, commit or rollback transactions automatically).
I am developing Spring MVC app, i need to implement singleton pattern for some kind of utilities, ex: imageuploader and others.
My question is: in what way to implement singleton for this utilities, to initialize beans for these classes and inject where i need like Controllers, Services, DAO?, or to use static field implementation of singleton to keep instance of this class?
First, try to avoid singleton as it's considered to be a bad practice. Also their interactions with other instances are difficult to test and validate, compared to non-singleton instances.
If you absolutely need it, I'd suggest you use a Spring bean so you can exploit the autowiring mechanism and Spring's bean lifecycle.
See the Beans section of the Spring reference doc for more info.
Using a Spring bean as will allow you to easily inject a mock in unit tests. However, you will only be able to access it from other Spring beans (or objects created by Spring beans that pass in a reference to it).
Also see this discussion in this question: Difference between static class and singleton pattern?
Traditionally, you'd use PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer to inject config from properties files into a Spring web-app. This blog discusses a variety of newer ways to do this with Spring.
Assume I have Spring MVC powered application with Spring security. I have:
UserBean class which provides CRUD operations on table User
UserController : controller which expose operation on User to http clients
UserLogin: Authentication provider from Spring security, which authenticates users.
How should I configure my application if:
I want simple XML configuration, with auto-discovering beans by annotations (<context:component-scan base-package="org.example"/>)
UserLogin and UserController needs UserBean to work
UserLogin and UserController use transaction annotations and aspect annotations
I see the following oportunities:
Create one common Spring XML configuration file, used both by DispatcherServlet and ContextLoaderListener
Disadvantage: nobody shows that solution in tutorial. All beans are duplicated (one instance in ContextLoaderListener context, second in DispatcherServlet). Duplication may cause some hard to track bugs. Duplication is not elegant
Create two Spring XML configuration files, one for ContextLoaderListener (main) and one for DispatcherServlet (controllers). UserBean is declared in first config and visible in second one
Disadvantage: to avoid duplication I have to add complex component scanning rules to both files (context:component-scan). <tx:annotation-driven and <aop:aspectj-autoproxy/> must be defined in both files. I will have still doubts which config file is appropiate when declaring new stuff.
Create two Spring XML configuration files and include third for common settings like <tx:annotation-driven
Disadvantage: I wanted simple solution...
Summary: I'm looking for good practice to configure application with Spring MVC + Spring Security AND security part is highly connected with business part. I was searching for good example but I always find case when security code is isolated from business code. But I need example when security and business share the code
Similar question: ContextLoaderListener or not?
I have two xml files for my configuration, no particular reason, that's just how it worked out.
These sample spring security projects provide good examples of lots of different types of configurations maybe you can find something that works for you:
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-security/tree/master/samples
Hidden message in my question was: having two contexts is stupid.
Did someone already notice that?
Is there a way to have single application configuration?
Answers:
Yes. https://jira.springsource.org/browse/SPR-6903
Yes. https://github.com/michaldo/spring-single-context-demo
The best practice which applies to my case is described here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/14032213/2365727
I have a dao jar file that contains all the domain objects and service classes. it has a config file dao-resource.xml with id=datasource.
I am using this jar file in another project which has its own app-context.xml, but i want to override the bean with id="datasource" in the jar file
how do i do this. I tried to add a bean with same id in app-context.xml and added both files to classpathxmlapplicat.... first dao-resource.xml then app-context.xml
but that did not seem to work.
how else can i override a bean
Having spring config files in jars makes things a bit harder to manage. If you have annotated your classes it would be easier.
But anyway, I'd suggest splitting the dao xml in two parts - your beans, and infrastructure-related beans (like the datasource). Then you can include only the ones you need in your app-context.xml.
Another way would be to use primary="true" on your overriding bean. This would mean all injection points that need a bean of type DataSource, would pick your primary bean. But that won't work if you refer to your datasource in your dao xml.
So in short - you can't override a bean, so split your xml file and include only the parts you need.
I've been looking into using EasyMock 3's IMockBuilder as a means of generating partial mocks (I know partial mocking may suggest a design flaw, but I'm writing tests for old code). Presumably I can use the deprecated static EasyMock.createMock() methods to create beans in my Spring config, like this:
<bean id="myBean" class="org.easymock.EasyMock" factory-method="createMock">
<constructor-arg value="org.mypackage.MyClass.class" />
</bean>
When creating a partial mock using an IMockBuilder, I need to make several calls to addMockedMethod() in order to define the methods I want mocked. Is there a way I can do this in a Spring XML configuration file? Ideally I'd like all the dependencies of all my beans set by Spring, and don't want to have to override them in my test cases in order to pass in mock objects created in this way.
Thanks
No, XML config isn't capable of that sort of flexibility.
You have two options:
Write an implementation of FactoryBean which creates the mock, configures it, and returns the mock to Spring. See Customizing instantiation logic with the FactoryBean Interface.
Use #Configuration-style configuration in Java, instead of XML style configuration. This is the most flexible approach, and is generally better than XML config. See Java-based container configuration