I have a service class that is being proxied by Spring, like so:
#Service
#Transactional
open class MyService { ... }
If I remove the open modifier, Spring complains that it needs to proxy the class to apply the #Transactional annotation tweaks.
However, this is causing issues when calling a function on the proxied service, which attempts to access a variable:
#Service
#Transactional
open class MyService {
protected val internalVariable = ...
fun doWork() {
internalVariable.execute() // NullPointerException
}
}
The internalVariable is assigned as part of its declaration, does not have any annotations (like #Autowired, etc.), and works fine when I remove the #Transactional annotation and the requirement for Spring to proxy the class.
Why is this variable null when Spring is proxying/subclassing my service class?
I hit a similar issue and the above comments by Rafal G & Craig Otis helped me-- so I'd like to propose that the following write up be accepted as an answer (or the comments above be changed to an answer and they be accepted).
The solution: open the method/field.
(I hit a similar case where it was a closed method that caused the problem. But whether it is a field/method the solution is the same, and I think the general cause is the same...)
Explanation:
Why this is the solution is more complicated and definitely has to do with Spring AOP, final fields/methods, CGLIB proxies, and how Spring+CGLIB attempts to deal with final methods (or fields).
Spring uses proxies to represent certain objects to handle certain concerns dealt with by Aspect Oriented Programming. This happens with services & controllers (especially when #Transactional or other advice is given that requires AOP solutions).
So a Proxy/Wrapper is needed with these beans, and Spring has 2 choices-- but only CGLIB is available when the parent class is not an interface.
When using CGLIB to proxy classes Spring will create a subclass called
something like myService$EnhancerByCGLIB. This enhanced class will
override some if not all of your business methods to apply
cross-cutting concerns around your actual code.
Here comes the real surprise. This extra subclass does not call super
methods of the base class. Instead it creates second instance of
myService and delegates to it. This means you have two objects now:
your real object and CGLIB enhanced object pointing to (wrapping) it.
From: spring singleton bean fields are not populated
Referenced By: Spring AOP CGLIB proxy's field is null
In Kotlin, classes & methods are final unless explicitly opened.
The magic of how Spring/CGLib when & how chooses to wrap a Bean in an EnhancerByCGLIB with a target delegate (so that it can use finalized methods/fields) I don't know. For my case, however the debugger showed me the 2 different structures. When the parent methods are open, it does not create a delegate (using subclassing instead) and works without NPE. However, when a particular methods is closed then for that closed method Spring/CGLIB uses a wrapped object with delegation to a properly initialized target delegate. For some reason, the actual invocation of the method is done with the context being the wrapper with its uninitialized field values (NULLs), causing NPE. (Had the method on the actual target/delegate been called, there should not have been a problem).
Craig was able to solve the problem by opening the property (not the method)-- which I suspect had a similar effect of allowing Spring/CGLib to either not use a delegate, or to somehow use the delegate correctly.
Related
In a Spring Boot Web Application layout, I have defined a Service Interface named ApplicationUserService. An implementation called ApplicationUserServiceImpl implements all the methods present in ApplicationUserService.
Now, I have a Controller called ApplicationUserController that calls all the methods of ApplicationUserServiceImpl under different #GetMapping annotations.
As suggested by my instructor, I have defined a Dependency Injection as follows:
public class ApplicationUserController {
private final ApplicationUserService applicationUserService; //This variable will work as an object now.
public ApplicationUserController(ApplicationUserService applicationUserService) {
this.applicationUserService = applicationUserService;
}
#GetMapping
//REST OF THE CODE
}
I am new to Spring Boot and I tried understanding Dependency Injection in plain English and I understood how it works. I understood that the basic idea is to separate the dependency from the usage. But I am totally confused about how this works in my case.
My Questions:
Here ApplicationUserService is an Interface and it's implementation has various methods defined. In the code above, applicationUserService now has access to every method from ApplicationUserServiceImpl. How did that happen?
I want to know how the Object creation works here.
Could you tell me the difference between not using DI and using DI in this case?
Answers
The interface layer is used for abstraction of the code it will be really helpfull when you want to provide different implementations for it. When you create a instance you are simply creating a ApplicationUserServiceImpl and assigning it into a reference variable of ApplicationUserService this concept is called upcasting. Even though you have created the object of child class/implementation class you can only access the property or methods defined in parent class/interface class. Please refer this for more info
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62599259/purpose-of-service-interface-class-in-spring-boot#:~:text=There%20are%20various%20reasons%20why,you%20can%20create%20test%20stubs.
in this example when a applicationusercontroller object is created. The spring engine(or ioc container) will create a object of ApplicationUserServiceImpl (since there is a single implementation of the interface ) and returns to controller object as a constructor orgument which you assign to the refrence variable also refer the concept called IOC(Invertion of control)
as explained in the previous answer the spring will take care of object creation (object lifecycle)rather than you explsitly doing it. it will make the objects loosely coupled. In this the controll of creating the instances is with spring .
The non DI way of doing this is
private ApplicationUserService applicationUserService = new ApplicationUserServiceImpl()
Hope I have answered your questions
this analogy may make you understand better consider an example, wherein you have the ability to cook. According to the IoC principle(principal which is the basis of DI), you can invert the control, so instead of you cooking food, you can just directly order from outside, wherein you receive food at your doorstep. Thus the process of food delivered to you at your doorstep is called the Inversion of Control.
You do not have to cook yourself, instead, you can order the food and let a delivery executive, deliver the food for you. In this way, you do not have to take care of the additional responsibilities and just focus on the main work.
Now, that you know the principle behind Dependency Injection, let me take you through the types of Dependency Injection
This is the code that I have:
#Component
#Configuration
#PropertySource("application.properties")
public class Program {
#Value("${app.title}")
private String appTitle;
public Program() {
System.out.println(appTitle);
}
}
The application.properties has
app.title=The Program
The output is null insteaf of The Program.
So, what am I missing? I have tried several examples; none worked.
Since appTitle is an autowired field, it is not set until after the object is initially constructed. This is why the value is still null in your example. The bean construction process in this scenario is as follows:
The Program constructor is called, creating a new Program instance
The appTitle field is set on the newly constructed bean to ${app.title}
The ideal fix for this depends on your goals. If you truly need the value within the constructor, you can pass it in as an autowired constructor parameter. The value will then be available within the constructor:
#Component
#Configuration
#PropertySource("application.properties")
public class Program {
public Program(#Value("${app.title}") appTitle) {
System.out.println(appTitle);
}
}
If you don't need it in the constructor itself, but need it for the proper initialization of the bean, you could alternatively use the #javax.annotation.PostConstruct annotation to make use of it after the object's construction but before it is made available for use elsewhere:
#Component
#Configuration
#PropertySource("application.properties")
public class Program {
#Value("${app.title}")
private String appTitle;
#PostConstruct
public void printAppTitle() {
System.out.println(appTitle);
}
}
Finally, if you don't need the value at construction time, but need it during the life of the bean, what you have will work; it just won't be available within the body of the constructor itself:
#Component
#Configuration
#PropertySource("application.properties")
public class Program {
#Value("${app.title}")
private String appTitle;
}
Nothing wrong, just don't do it in a constructor...
Other answers on this question are written assuming the goal is creating a Spring-managed bean that uses the given property in its creation. However, based on your comments in another answer, it looks like the question you want answered is how to access an externalized property (one provided by #Value) within a no-argument constructor. This is based on your expectation that a Java inversion of control (IoC) container such as Spring should allow accessing externalized properties (and presumably other dependencies) within a no-argument constructor. That being the case, this answer will address the specific question of accessing the property within a no-argument constructor.
While there are certainly ways this goal could be achieved, none of them would be idiomatic usage of the Spring framework. As you discovered, autowired fields (i.e. fields initialized using setter injection) cannot be accessed within the constructor.
There are two parts to explaining why this is. First, why does it work the way it does, programmatically? Second, why was it designed the way it was?
The setter-based dependency injection section of the Spring docs addresses the first question:
Setter-based DI is accomplished by the container calling setter methods on your beans after invoking a no-argument constructor or a no-argument static factory method to instantiate your bean.
In this case, it means that first the object is created using the no-argument constructor. Second, once the object is constructed, the appTitle is initialized on the constructed bean. Since the field isn't initialized until after the object is constructed, it will have its default value of null within the constructor.
The second question is why Spring is designed this way, rather than somehow having access to the property within the constructor. The constructor-based or setter-based DI? sidebar within the Spring documentation makes it clear that constructor arguments are in fact the idiomatic approach when dealing with mandatory dependencies in general.
Since you can mix constructor-based and setter-based DI, it is a good rule of thumb to use constructors for mandatory dependencies and setter methods or configuration methods for optional dependencies. [...]
The Spring team generally advocates constructor injection, as it lets you implement application components as immutable objects and ensures that required dependencies are not null. Furthermore, constructor-injected components are always returned to the client (calling) code in a fully initialized state. [...]
Setter injection should primarily only be used for optional dependencies that can be assigned reasonable default values within the class. [...]
A property needed to construct the object certainly would be categorized as a mandatory dependency. Therefore, idiomatic Spring usage would be to pass in this required value in the constructor.
So in summary, trying to access an application property within a no-argument constructor is not supported by the Spring framework, and in fact runs contrary to the recommended use of the framework.
Please consider following situation with spring 4.0.7
For Eclipselink, we use a load-time-weaver. So we wanted to experiment with Springs #Configurable annotation using #EnableSpringConfigured with #EnableLoadTimeWeaving at the same time.
This is fully functional, and Spring-Beans are injected perfectly into POJOs during construction. This functionality is helpful for us, because we want to keep some code regarding validation of these POJOs inside these and not somewhere else in a Bean.
SOme of our Spring Context contains Beans that do not implement any interface, because they are local to some package and used only there. Lets say, FooLogicBean is one of them. If this is to be injected into another Bean, and some Spring-AOP-Aspect (not-aspectj) like some performance measurement aspect is in the execution path, Spring will create a CGLIB autoproxy for the FooLogicBean and inject that. This is fully functional and works perfectly too.
Problems arise, when we want to actually use a POJO that is annotated with #Configurable as a parameter in a method of FooLogicBean (like fooLogicBean.doValidate(myPojo); ), respectively a CGLIB Proxy. In this case, some non-trivial magic stops that POJO from being woven thru aspectj (AnnotationBeanConfigurerAspect from spring-aspects). It is even never woven anywhere in the code regardless of calling the aforementioned doValidate() Method.
If we create that POJO inside FooLogicBean, but dont use it as a method Parameter, it gets woven again due to #Configurable.
Without knowing the Autoproxy creation code, we assume some fancy marking routine from hindering a class from being detected by aspectj, if that class was already used in spring-aop. use in this case means Access.
Did anyone experiment with such obscure constellation and knows a solution for that?
Thanks in advance!
Proxies are created by subclassing, i.e. when you create a proxy of an annotated class Foo:
class Foo {
#Bar
void bar() { }
}
the proxy is created by implementing a class
class Foo$Proxy extends Foo {
#Override
void bar() {
// Proxy logic
}
// Overridden methods of Object
}
This makes the Foo$Proxy class a valid Liskov substitute for Foo. However, normal override semantics apply, i.e. non-inherited annotations such as #Bar are not longer present for the overridden methods. Once another annotation-based API processes your beans, all annotations have disappeared which leads to your outcome. This is true for all kinds of annotations. Those on types, methods and method parameters.
But is it avoidable? It most certainly is by using a proxy generator that was written recently and is built with knowledge of what annotations are, something that is not true for cglib which was first shipped in the early days of the Java virtual machine. However, as long as Spring does not move away from cglib, you will have to live with today's limitations.
I'm currently trying to add a pointcut around calls to HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect (api doc http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/servlet/http/HttpServletResponse.html) using aspectj and spring aop. The code for the class and pointcut are as follows:
#Aspect
#Log4j
class ExampleAspect {
#Before("execution(* javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect(..))")
void logRedirectBeforeSending() {
log.warn('holy cow batman, its a redirect!')
}
}
Currently although the above code compiles it doesn't actually ever execute (as evidenced by a lack of warn output in the log and debug breakpoints in the advice code never being hit).
Although I've omitted them here just for the sake of simplicity the aspect contains other pointcuts which do correctly fire so I have ruled out aspect configuration as a potential cause (which is why I am not including my spring bean configuration).
Further, I have double checked via debugging that a class which implements HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect() is being called when I'm testing my pointcut (if it helps, one of the implementing classes being called is org.apache.catalina.connector.Response https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/api/org/apache/catalina/connector/Response.html).
Is there something I'm missing in my pointcut definition that's required when defining a pointcut around an interface? Best I could tell from the Spring AOP documentation it shouldn't require any special syntax.
I've been playing around with variations in the pointcut definition but haven't had any luck yet.
All in all I'm stumped, any ideas?
I expect that your response object is not coming from the Spring application context and as such it would not be subject to your aspect.
It doesn't matter that the call is being initiated from a Spring bean. It matters that the call is being invoked on a Spring bean. If you for example wrote a point cut to be applied to the append method in StringBuffer and then you did something like new StringBuffer().append('something'), your point cut would not be applied because the StringBuffer that you are interacting with is not a Spring bean. I don't know how your app is put together but unless your response is coming out of the Spring context, I don't expect your point cut to be applied.
I'm trying to use Spring AOP to inject behavoir into an object. The target object has a single method which is the join point for this new behavior. That method also has a custom annotation that I want to be able to read from other unrelated code. Because my class doesn't implement an interface, Spring is using CGLIB to dynamically subclass the target object. The generated subclass doesn't seem to have the annotation added to the original class.
I tried adding the #Inherited annotation to the custom annotation without luck. It turns out #Inherited only applies to classes. This suggests that Spring would have to explicitly apply my annotation to the overridden method in the subclass.
EDIT: I found a workaround and some more information on the problem. It looks like the CGLib people are aware of the issue. Annotations are treated like implementation in Java (rather than like part of the method signature). Overriding methods must re-declare annotations. CGLib doesn't do this (intentionally by the sound of things).
My workaround was to change my reflection logic. Where I was searching for the annotated method on the class passed to me, I now look at the class and it's super classes. I end up locating the method using the superclass (in the case of a proxy), but when I call the method, regular polymorphisim applies. This makes for some ugly reflection code (even more ugly than normal). It also seems like I shouldn't have to compensate for a SpringAOP implementation detail in my code.
It seems like Spring should provide a cleaner way to handle this. If anyone has other suggestions, they would be appreciated.
Are you sure you have the RetentionPolicy on your annotation set to RUNTIME ?