I am using spring-boot 2.0.4; I have a bunch of services and they have a common configuration class marked with #Configuration.
I want to move this to a common dependency which will have this #Configuration, and based on the need, any micro-service can use #ComponentScan to activate this configuration from dependency.
I have done this for #Component classes, and it's working fine. I activate any particular component I need by adding it into #ComponentScan. How can I activate the configuration in a similar manner(based on need).
Here are the code examples:
Common Configuration:
package abc.department.common.configs.mongo
#Component
public class AbcMongo {
#Bean
public MongoTemplate mongoTemplate() {
// ... create MongoTemplate.
return createdMongoTemplate;
}
}
Here is a class which uses the above dependency:
#Configuration
#ComponentScan("abc.department.common.configs.mongo")
public class MyServiceConfigs {
}
Similarly, I want to do something like this:
package abc.department.common.configs.security.web
#Configuration
#EnableWebSecurity
public class AbcWebSecurity extends WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter {
#Override
protected void configure(HttpSecurity http) throws Exception {
// ... do common configs;
}
}
and now, if a service would need web-security config, it could get like:
#Configuration
#ComponentScan({"abc.department.common.configs.mongo","abc.department.common.configs.security.web"})
public class MyServiceConfigs {
}
#Configuration is meant to specify the beans, for example:
#Configuration
public class MyMongoConfiguration {
#Bean
public MongoTemplate mongoTemplate() {
return new ...
}
#Bean
public MySampleBean mySampleBean(MongoTemplate tpl) {
return new MySampleBean(tpl);
}
}
But if so why do you need to work with #Component at all (at least for the beans you create)?
Configuration is a special bean used by Spring framework to load other beans and it can be viewed as a "substitution"/alternative technique to component scanning.
I believe that, if you have some infrastructure configuration that loads a bunch of "infrastructure beans" (shared jar if I get you right), then the services that use this jar should only say "Hey, I want to load this configuration" and not to scan inside the packaging structure of that jar. Why do I think so?
What if you decide to add new beans into a new package in the infra, should external services change their code and define an additional folder to scan? - Probably no.
What if you decide to move the infra to another package?
Now in Spring there are two simple ways to do this that come to mind:
Way 1: Use #Import Annotation
#Configuration // this is from "shared artifact"
class MyInfraConfiguration {
}
#Configuration // this is from an "applicative service" that uses the infra jar in dependencies
#Import(MyInfraConfiguration.class)
class ServiceAConfiguration {
}
Way 2: Use Spring Factories mechanism
The first way has a drawback: You need to know in a Service what infra configuration exactly is. If you see it as a drawback, consider using spring factories.
Spring factories allow registering the infra configuration in some file so that spring boot will load it in service one automatically, you won't even need to mention MyInfraConfiguration in the Service Configuration, just add a dependency to the infra jar and it will work.
In the infra component create:
META-INF/spring.factories
And add there:
org.springframework.boot.autoconfigure.EnableAutoConfiguration=\
com.mycompany.myinfra.whatever.InfraConfiguration
That's it.
Now if you want to customize the loading of beans in the infra configuration, like, a creation of Mongo related templates only if some properties are available, you might want to use #Conditional. Now, although this is kind of out of scope for this question, I mention this because in conjunction with spring factories this can create a very flexible way to manage your configurations
Related
In our app I found out, that my integration tests picks up more stuff than I'd like. I'd like to know, how correctly structured app configuration looks like, what do you use, so that I can #Import in tests only those configuration which are used in production, which are needed.
I believe relevant page in documentation is:
https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/reference/htmlsingle/#boot-features-testing-spring-boot-applications-testing-user-configuration
... it's stressed there, that it's important to structure code in sensible way, however it's not shown that much, what that is/means. I know about profiles and can probably create profile which would be unmatched in tests and import manually, but that's probably not that sensible way they were talking about.
Consider this main entrypoint:
#SpringBootApplication
public class DemoApplication {
private final SomeService someService;
public DemoApplication(SomeService someService) {
this.someService = someService;
}
#EventListener(ApplicationReadyEvent.class)
public void started() {
System.out.println(someService.doIt());
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(DemoApplication.class, args);
}
}
interface of some service:
public interface SomeService {
public String doIt();
}
and configuration:
#Configuration
public class Config {
#Bean
public SomeService createSomeServiceBean() {
return new SomeService() {
#Override
public String doIt() {
return String.format("Hi! (At %s)", LocalDateTime.now());
}
};
}
}
When invoked, entrypoint annotated by #SpringBootApplication will do component scan, will discover configuration and it will work. Reading further in documentation we will find sentence: Test slices exclude #Configuration classes from scanning([if #ComponentScan does have default value of basePackages and basePackagesClasses]), however following test:
#SpringBootTest
class DemoApplicationTests {
#Autowired
private SomeService someService;
#Test
void contextLoads() {
System.out.println(someService.doIt());
}
}
just happily discovers SomeService bean defined. Or did that sentence meant just that tests annotated by for example #DataJpaTest won't register some configurations? Kinda unclear to me, but it does not seem possible, since how would #DataJpaTest would know, which configurations to ommit and which not.
Again, I know how to use profiles/excluding configurations. I'm asking about "sensible way of structuring app".
How to sensibly structure you app and how to configure it so that:
#SpringBootApplication annotated entrypoint will do component scan, find and use configurations, for production, but these configurations needs to be manually imported in tests?
some packages will be automatically scanned for configurations which will be used both in development and tests environments.
The Spring Boot Test support provides annotations that allow to only create a Spring Context with the relevant beans to testing a specific slice of your application.
There is no specific package structure or naming strategy required to make use of this feature.
Here are some of these:
#DataJpaTest: You get a Spring Context with relevant beans to test your JPA <-> Database interface: EntityManager, DataSource, all your interfaces extending JpaRepository
#WebMvcTest: You get a Spring Context with a mocked servlet environment for testing your web layer that includes the following beans for your: all your controller, controller advice, WebMvcConfigurer , Filter, etc. but not anything that is annotated with e.g. #Service or #Component
#SpringBootTest: This will give you a full Spring Context and tries to create all beans for you. You can exclude some autoconfiguration e.g. if you don't want autoconfiguration to kick in:
Example:
#SpringBootTest(webEnvironment = RANDOM_PORT)
#TestPropertySource(properties=
{"spring.autoconfigure.exclude=org.springframework.boot.autoconfigure.security.servlet.SecurityAutoConfiguration"})
There are way more test slice annotations, you can have a look at here
So these annotations are smart in a way that they know which beans they should include in the context and which to exclude.
A general approach to testing your application can be to use the first two test annotations stated above to verify web and data layer in isolation. Next use Mockito and plain JUnit 5 to unit test your service classes. And finally, write some integration test that creates the whole Spring Context with #SpringBootTest to test everything together.
Below is my Spring Boot starter class.
#SpringBootApplication
#ComponentScan({"com.example"})
#EntityScan("com.example.entity")
#EnableJpaRepositories("com.example.repository")
public class SpringAppApplication {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(SpringAppApplication.class, args);
}
}
Now, how can I configure something like #ComponentScan({"com.example.*"})
so that I can avoid adding #EntityScan("com.example.entity") and #EnableJpaRepositories("com.example.repository")
#SpringBootApplication annotation is actualy 3 annotations in one which includes the #ComponentScan (take a look here). And if you have it in the root package of your project (which is considered a good practice) you do not have to do anything there.
#EntityScan and #EnableJpaRepositories are different and are related to spring data library so it really kinda makes sense NOT to have them included in #SpringBootApplication.
Because these annotations could easily be on a configuration class for database or something like that (separating your configuration classes also has it's benefits sometimes).
If you want, you can always write your own custom annotation and inherit the two (or 4) annotations you want. There are plenty of online resources out there on the topic.
In my spring boot application (powered by spring-boot-starter-jersey):
I can easily make a resource config (jersey way but not jaxrs way) like this:
#Configuration
#ApplicationPath("/sample")
public class SampleResourceConfig extends ResourceConfig {
And I just want to try with javax.ws.rs.core.Applicaiton:
#Configuration
#ApplicationPath("/sample")
public class SampleResourceConfig extends javax.ws.rs.core.Applicaiton{
public Set<Class<?>> getClasses() {
Set<Class<?>> classes = new HashSet<Class<?>>();
classes.add(SampleResource.class);
return classes;
}
But no lucky, it does not work.
Did I miss something?
Thanks
Leon
It won't work as the Spring Boot auto-configuration is made specifically to look for a bean of type ResourceConfig, not Application. If you want to use Application, you can't use the auto-configuration. You'll need to just create the JAX-RS servlet yourself and register it with a Spring Boot ServletRegistratiobBean, similar to what you'll see in the source code I linked to.
I have an application, let's call it MyApp. An example of the build.gradle looks like this:
compile group: 'com.example', name: 'library'
compile .. spring-heatoas ..
Now, the way this library works is that it expects the host to give it a bean of type ObjectMapper. It by itself does not define an ObjectMapper as the configuration of the same is completely open to the host library. So basically, in the host MyApp I have this config:
#Configuration
public class SpringConfig {
#Bean
public ObjectMapper objectMapper() { ... }
}
Everything is fine and working, till I had the spring-hateos dependency. spring-hateos defines it's own ObjectMapper which goes by the name _hal_objectMapper. So, after adding it, I get a conflict between the two beans. I tried:
#Bean
#Order(Ordered.HIGHEST_PRECEDENCE)
public ObjectMapper objectMapper() { ... }
Not only does this not work, but even if it did, I guess it has the potential to break functionality as the host application can no longer configure the ObjectMapper. A straightforward solution obviously is to make the library accept a named-bean and then declare it in my host application with a #Qualifier annotation. But getting the library to change (and there are a couple of libraries like that) company-wide is going to be a major pain. While we are considering that solution, is there a way to solve this?
The annotation #Primary advises spring to use that annotated bean if many beans of the same type are available. This could resolve your issue.
Your code should look like this :
#Configuration
public class SpringConfig {
#Bean
#Primary
public ObjectMapper objectMapper() { ... }
}
The problem may be now, that spring-hateos also uses this objectMapper, which is not configured as expected.
A complete solution could be, to create a child spring context.
Only for your ObjectMapper and the 3rd party bean, so that the objectMapper is not visible for the rest of you application.
How this is done depends on how you instantiate the 3rd party bean, and also where it will be used. With the provided information I cannot describe that more detailed.
You can find a good entry here :
modularizing-configurations
(see chapter 'Nesting #Configuration classes' or search for 'child')
I have a web application that use Sring IoC framework.
I use the Java configuration for Spring, and I only use #Configuration annoted module definition (no DI related tags elsewhere in the code).
The Spring registry is built on web application start-up thanks to (a bit modified version of) Spring context loader listener, and the contextConfigLocation param in web.xml configured to point to the #Configuration annotated class.
All that is good and I get a AnnotationConfigWebApplicationContext.
Now, I want to have plugins in my application, that will have their own #Configuration annotated configuration classes, and will use some of the main application services. BUT I don't want to have main application to be modified to load these new modules.
So, I thought that I could simply use the package searching of annotated class for that, but now, it seems that I can use two beans with the same type, even if they have different ids, and clearly AnnotationConfigWebApplicationContext doc states that:
Note: In case of multiple #Configuration classes, later #Bean definitions will override ones defined in earlier loaded files. This can be leveraged to deliberately override certain bean definitions via an extra Configuration class.
I don't want that, because modules should be able to contribute alternative version of services, not (alwways) override existing one - especcially if I want to have a "moduleDef" bean.
I tried to use differents approach on that, but the hierachy of Context and related services is just to big for me.
So, does anybody know how I could reach my goal ?
Thanks
You can have multiple beans of the same type, but You cannot have 2 or more beans with the same ID in a single Spring ApplicationContext - no matter if You use XML or JavaConfig.
The overriding mechanism matches the bean ID's, so all You need to do is to ensure unique ID, i.e.: coreModuleDef, someOtherModuleDef, anotherModuleDef. I don't think You need the ID of each module definition to be identical? What should be sufficient is the type to be the same, but not ID.
You can also turn off the overriding mechanism by setting allowBeanDefinitionOverriding to false on Your AnnotationConfigWebApplicationContext to get an exception if You accidentally override a bean:
public class MyDispatcherServlet extends DispatcherServlet {
#Override
protected void postProcessWebApplicationContext(
ConfigurableWebApplicationContext wac) {
((AnnotationConfigWebApplicationContext) wac)
.setAllowBeanDefinitionOverriding(false);
}
}
or:
public class MyContextLoaderListener extends ContextLoaderListener {
#Override
protected void customizeContext(
ServletContext servletContext,
ConfigurableWebApplicationContext applicationContext) {
((AnnotationConfigWebApplicationContext) wac)
.setAllowBeanDefinitionOverriding(false);
}
}