#ComponentScan creates beans using both #Configuration and #Component. Both these annotations work fine when swapped. What is the difference then?
#Configuration Indicates that a class declares one or more #Bean
methods and may be processed by the Spring container to generate bean
definitions and service requests for those beans at runtime
#Component Indicates that an annotated class is a "component". Such
classes are considered as candidates for auto-detection when using
annotation-based configuration and classpath scanning.
#Configuration is meta-annotated with #Component, therefore
#Configuration classes are candidates for component scanning
You can see more here:
http://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/4.0.4.RELEASE/javadoc-api/org/springframework/context/annotation/Configuration.html
A #Configuration is also a #Component, but a #Component cannot act like a #Configuration.
Actually answer is not complete, is it true that:
#Component Indicates that an annotated class is a "component". Such
classes are considered as candidates for auto-detection when using
annotation-based configuration and classpath scanning.
But you do can create i.e MyConfiguration.java class then stereotype with #Component and add #Beans declaration to it. In this way it will looks as a configuration, main difference is that when annotated class with #Configuration #Bean annotated methods are proxy using CGLIB which made in code calls after the first one to return bean from context instead of execute method again and create another instance as happens when using #Component with #Bean
There is a very subtle difference between them. Let me provide a very quick outlook to this.
Consider the below scenario:
#Configuration
public class MyConfig {
#Bean
public ServiceA aService(){
return new ServiceA();
}
#Bean
public ServiceB bService(){
return new ServiceB(aService());
}
}
Note that ServiceB bean has a dependecy on ServiceA and this is not autowired. Instead, the way it's written implies that a new instance is created, which is not actually created by Spring. You, the programmer, did it with the new keyword instead.
So, if we do use #Configuration, then it uses CGLIB proxying, and in this situation it creates a singleton bean managed by the Spring context. If you invoke it multiple times, it returns the same bean that was created by Spring - sort of autowiring effect.
Whereas if you use #Component, it won't do this proxying and will simply return a new instance every time the method is invoked, instead of providing the Spring managed instance. (Remember that a Spring bean is something that is managed by the Spring container, and, as a developer, it's your job is to pull them in, e.g. with #Autowired.
The same #Component effect can be achieved with #Configuration(proxyEnabled= false) (This is also referred to as bean light mode processing). So, in light mode, you would end up doing something like this:
#Configuration(proxyEnabled = false) // Lite mode, same effect as #Component
public class MyConfig {
#Bean
public ServiceA aService() {
return new ServiceA();
}
#Autowired
#Bean
public ServiceB bService(ServiceA aServiceBean){
return new ServiceB(aServiceBean);
}
}
Refer here for a more elaborate explanation
Hope that helps! Happy Coding!
#Configuration - It is like beans.xml but Java-based bean configuration. It means class annotated with this annotation is the place where beans are configured and will be a candidate for auto-detection. In this class, methods are annotated with #Bean which return an object of the class.
Example:
#Configuration
public class ConfigClass {
#Bean
public UserClass getObject() {
return new UserClass();
}
}
#Component - You cannot autowire (#Autowired) any class if it is not marked with #Component. It means when you want to autowire any class using annotation that class should be annotated with #Component.
Example:
#Component
public class A { .... }
public class B {
#Autowired
A a;
.....
.....
}
Spring Document for reference:
https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/javadoc-api/org/springframework/context/annotation/Configuration.html
#Component is imported by default with #Configuration. controllers, service, and repostory are children components (along with Configuration). They are also candidate for auto-detection.
I am extending on #reus's answer.
#Configuration Indicates that a class declares one or more #Bean methods and may be processed by the Spring container to generate bean definitions and service requests for those beans at runtime.
If you look at the #Configuration class, you will see that it is meta-annotated with #Component.
#Target(value=TYPE)
#Retention(value=RUNTIME)
#Documented
#Component
public #interface Configuration
#Bean is enables us to define the dependency in any way we like, this is why the #Bean annotation goes above a methods and we manually create a bean object and return it from that method. #Component enables us to define a dependency quickly, that is why #Component goes above classes. We only inject it wherever we need.
Collectively these 3 points says that- to quickly define a bean, we can annotate the class with #Component. To define a bean as we like (support custom requirements), we can write the bean definition using #Bean inside a #Configuration annotated class.
Apart from the differences highlighted by reos.
The reason why #Configuration cannot be replaced by #Component is as below:
The difference is in how the inter bean dependency is handled.
Refer the link for a detailed explanation with example:
Difference between Configuration and Component
Related
I'm wondering whether it's possible to autowire a class annotated with #Configuration into any annotated class (#Component, #SpringBootTest, etc)? I know it's possible between #Configuration classes, but I can't find a straight answer on if it's possible outside #Configuration classes (both test and non-test classes). Sample code to illustrate what I mean below:
#Configuration
public class Config {
//Anything in here
}
//any non-Configuration annotation
public class Autowired {
#Autowire
Config config; //like this
}
If you are looking at the source code of #Configuration annotation you can see it's annotated itself with #Component, making annotated classes with it also Spring components, so making them available for injection.
#Target({ElementType.TYPE})
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Documented
#Component
public #interface Configuration {
Yes. you can autowire configuration class as #configuration annotation contains #component
I've switched a portion of a Spring app to use functional bean registrations. The motivation for the switch is due to requiring multiple instances of some beans under certain conditions. It also turns out to be much more concise (which won't be at all apparent with the simplistic examples below).
The code used to look like this (simple example):
#Configuration
public class ConfigA {
#Bean
public BeanA beanA() {
return new BeanA();
}
}
#Service
public class Service1 {
#Autowired BeanA beanA;
...
}
#Service
public class Service2 {
#Autowired BeanA beanA;
...
}
I've switched the configuration class to look like this:
#Configuration
public class ConfigA implements ApplicationContextInitializer<GenericApplicationContext> {
#Override
public void initialize(GenericApplicationContext context) {
context.registerBean("beanA", BeanA.class, () -> new BeanA());
}
}
The issue I'm now encountering is that Spring is complaining about autowired beans not being found. With the original code, Spring could determine that a BeanA bean was declared via ConfigA and would create that bean before initializing the services.
With the new code, I guess there is no way for Spring to determine where the BeanA bean(s) are being declared, and so it tries to init the services before the BeanA is initialized (which causes the app to not start).
I was hoping that Spring would prioritize #Configuration classes over #Service or #Controller classes, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I could annotate all the services with #DependsOn("configA"), but there are many services that autowire BeanA (some in other code bases), so the #DependsOn option isn't really realistic.
Question: When using functional bean registration, is there a way to inform Spring that ConfigA is responsible for creating an instance of BeanA?
In order to use the functional style of bean registration and enable autowiring mechanism in other beans you can do the following:
Remove #Configuration annotation from your ConfigA class;
Create directory named META-INF under main/java/resources and create a file named spring.factories under the newly created directory;
Fill the newly created file with the line org.springframework.context.ApplicationContextInitializer=(package-name-to-configA-class).ConfigA
Now Spring should be able to successfully autowire bean named BeanA where requested.
I have a class which I have annotated with #Service #Scope
#Slf4j
#Service
#Scope(value = "request", proxyMode = ScopedProxyMode.TARGET_CLASS)
public class ProductDataModel {
#Value("${message}")
private String message;
The above code seems to be creating a bean for ProductDataModel, without using the #Bean annotation.
I am using #Autowired ProductDataModel productDataModel in my code, and the dependency productDataModel is not null, when used with above piece of Code.
How come the above code is creating bean ??
Ideally, I would have expected bean to created only when I use the below code
//I am not using this piece of code in my program., for reference only
#Configuration
public class OSCConfig {
#Bean
#Scope(value = "request", proxyMode = ScopedProxyMode.TARGET_CLASS)
ProductDataModel productDataModel(){
return new ProductDataModel();
}
Can someone explain the difference between 2 pieces of code and when to use which one.
As #M. Deinum pointed out that we don't need to specify #Bean for each class when we declare #Service or #Controller annotation they are picked up by Spring Container if component-scanning is enabled for that package.
So good use case for using #Bean could be that
If the Class is in third party jar and you can not add #Service/#Controller annotations
If you want to add some custom logic inside the #Bean annotate methods
The #Service annotation is picked up by Spring when scanning for objects to create (as part of a package scan). It is an specialisation of the spring #Component annotation, but doesn't really add much other than providing an indication to users about its intended purpose. The #Controlller annotation is similar, but the bean created has specific characteristics.
The #Bean annotation as you have used it is also used when creating objects, and in this context it is on a method in a Configuration class, therefore the bean created is of the type returned by the method.
lets say I have code like this:
#Repository
public class Foo{
}
#Service
public class Boo{
#Autowired
private Foo foo;
}
so now what here are we calling bean? Bean is the object of Foo type of refrence "foo" BUT are Boo class annotated as Service and Foo as Repository ALSO beans? Ihve been using spring for a while now but this basic question makes me feel bad for not knowing...
In the context of Spring, A bean is a spring managed object. Here spring managed means an object created, initialised, managed, destroyed by Spring IoC container.
Whenever we mark a class with #Component, Spring IOC container will create object for your class and manage it, Whenever we can simply get it from ApplicationContext, or access it using #Autowired/#Resource/#Inject annotations
We can also use #Controller, #Repository, #Service, #ControllerAdvice, #Configuration,#Aspect in place of #Component to tell more specifically that our class is a service or a repository or an aspect etc.
We can also use #Bean annotation to create a bean from method return value
#Configuration
public class SolrConfig {
#Value("${spring.data.solr.host}") String solrUrl;
#Bean
public SolrServer solrServer() {
return new HttpSolrServer(solrUrl);
}
#Bean(name = "solrTemplate")
public SolrTemplate solrTemplate() {
return new SolrTemplate(new HttpSolrServer(solrUrl), RULE_ENGINE_CORE);
}
}
All of your application components (#Component, #Service, #Repository, #Controller etc.) will be automatically registered as Spring Beans
http://docs.spring.io/autorepo/docs/spring-boot/current/reference/html/using-boot-spring-beans-and-dependency-injection.html
Defining Beans can be thought of as replacing the keyword new.
Further information can be found here which might be helpful for understanding Beans in Spring.
I believe #Configuration annotation when used in conjunction with #Bean annotation in spring is used to replace xml configuration. However I saw a piece of code where #Bean was used in conjunction with #Component (defined at class level). Is this a valid declaration? Are there any any pros / cons in using #Component with #Bean annotation vs using #Configuration and #Bean.
EDIT:
Thanks #Sundar & #Biju. I did programmatic call between 2 bean methods under Component class. I saw different object values. However when I used Configuration , I saw the same bean values. Based on what you had explained , I assume a regular method call was made when I used #Component , whereas when I used #Configuration , I assume method annotated with #Bean was treated as a Spring Bean
Code
#Component
public class AppConfig {
#Bean(name="customerService")
public CustomerService getCustomerService(){
System.out.println(getService());
System.out.println(getService());
return getService();
}
#Bean
public CustomerService getService(){
return new CustomerServiceImpl();
}
}
Console Output
com.company.service.CustomerServiceImpl#68bbe345
com.company.service.CustomerServiceImpl#30b8a058
Code
#Configuration
public class AppConfig {
#Bean(name="customerService")
public CustomerService getCustomerService(){
System.out.println(getService());
System.out.println(getService());
return getService();
}
#Bean
public CustomerService getService(){
return new CustomerServiceImpl();
}
}
Console Output
com.company.service.CustomerServiceImpl#71623278
com.company.service.CustomerServiceImpl#71623278
It is a valid declaration, however there are catches - the one within a #Component is referred to as a lite-mode and dependencies cannot easily be injected for beans declared in this form. The recommendation is always to use #Bean in a #Configuration annotated class - here is a good reference on this - http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/htmlsingle/#beans-java-basic-concepts
You can use #Component as an alternative for #Configuration. It’s official suggestion from spring team.
Simply declare your #Bean methods on classes not annotated with #Configuration (but typically with another Spring stereotype instead, e.g. #Component). As long as you don’t do programmatic calls between your #Bean methods, this is going to work just as fine, but conditions apply*.
Please refer more info in this link.
http://dimafeng.com/2015/08/29/spring-configuration_vs_component/