Is it sensible to use Spring in the server side of an in memory data grid based application?
My gut feeling tells me that it is nonsense in a low latency high performance system. A colleague of mine is insisting on including Spring in it. What are the pros and cons of such inclusion?
My position is that Spring is OK to be used in the client but it is too heavy for the server, it brings too many dependancies and is one more leaky abstraction to think of.
Data Grid systems are memory and I/O intensive in general. Using Spring does not affect that (you may argue that Spring creates a lot of beans but with proper Garbage Collection tuning this is not a problem).
On the other hand using Spring (or any other DI) helps you structure and test your code.
So if you are using implementing some sort of server based on Data Grid systems, pay attention to properly adjusting GC, sockets in your OS (memory buffers and socket memories). Those will give you much more benefits than cutting down DI.
First, I'm surprised by the "leaky abstraction" comment. I've never heard anyone criticize Spring for this. In fact, it's just the opposite. Spring removes the implementation details of infrastructure such as data grids from your application code and provides a consistent and familiar programming model, allowing you to focus on business logic. Spring does a lot to enhance configuration and access to data grids, especially Gemfire, and generally does not create any runtime overhead per se. During initialization of a Spring application, Spring uses tools like reflection and AOP internally which may increase the start up time of an application, but this has no impact on runtime performance. Spring has been proven in many high-throughput, low-latency production applications. In extreme cases, things like network latency and serialization, concerns external to Spring, are normally the biggest factors affecting performance.
"Spring brings in too many dependencies" is a common complaint, but is a fallacy. I would say Spring brings in the exact right amount of dependencies for what it needs to do. Additionally, Spring Boot starters and the platform BOM do a lot to simplify dependency management so you don't need to worry about version incompatibilities or explicitly declaring common dependencies. I'll have to side with your colleague on this one.
Related
When we talk about spring (which ever module say jdbc), one of the reasons we use it is because it enables dependency injection and controls lifecycle of beans/classes. In programming, one of the most important fundamental is to code for interfaces rather than implementations, so today if I am using sql server driver v1, I can change it to v2 tomorrow if my code is written in such a way that it cares about Driver interface and not the implementations, then in what case would I ever need coding over configuration ?
The wording of your question seems a bit strange to me. Perhaps you are asking if there are any drawbacks to using Spring-like dependency injection. I can think of a few drawbacks, but whether these drawbacks outweigh the potential benefits of Spring is a matter of opinion.
Unfortunately, a Spring XML file is much more verbose than code to achieve similar (but hard-coded) initialisation of objects.
A programmer has to look not just at code but also at a Spring XML file to figure out what is going on. This, arguably, is a form of the Yo-yo problem.
One significant benefit of Spring is that it can be used to instantiate and configure any Java class (assuming the classes provide getters and setters). In particular, Java classes do not need to be polluted with the need to inherit from framework infrastructure classes. If you don't mind polluting classes with the need to inherit from framework infrastructure, then it is possible to have much more concise configuration files for instantiating and configuring objects. A case study illustrating this idea can be found in Chapters 9, 10 and 11 of the Config4* Practical Usage Guide. I am not proposing that the approach used in that case study be used for all applications, but I think it is a good approach to use when there is a complex, standardised API (such as for JMS) that is implemented by multiple products. In the case study, the approach results in a significantly easier-to-use API and eliminates some potential bugs from applications. Spring doesn't offer such benefits.
Section 9.4.2 of the Config4* Practical Usage Guide outlines a 9-step initialisation process for typical JMS applications. The framework library discussed in the case study ensures that those 9 steps are carried out in the correct order. It has been years since I looked at Spring so I might be wrong, but I don't think Spring has the flexibility to (easily or perhaps at all) enforce such a complex 9-step initialisation mechanism.
It looks like the performance of Spring (Boot) is relatively low compare to other frameworks at "Web Framework Benchmarks" website Web Framework Benchmarks. I looked at the source code (JSON serialization) and could not find anything odd. So I am wondering whether the low performance is caused by Tomcat or by the framework itself?
Slow? It seems to be more or less in the middle of the ranks. Which doesn't seem too bad considering that it is actually a framework. The definition of framework for that set of benchmarks is very liberal, given that it includes benchmarks for a pretty raw Undertow application and another for a raw Servlet.
But given that the Spring benchmark itself is running on Undertow, it wouldn't be Tomcat causing the issue. :)
Looking at the source for the various benchmarks, they are really not comparing like for like. For example, the Spring benchmark project builds a reasonably standard multi-tiered application with ORM entities mapped with JPA and Hibernate, re-usable repository classes, etc.
On the other hand the Wicket application just has a controller with a JDBC call. It even uses a hand-cranked template for generating JSON. You could write a Spring application that way if you wanted to, but nobody would be impressed.
The Undertow benchmark again does little more than query a database with JDBC and spit out a response. It's not surprising that it would be faster than itself with a full stack framework running on it.
Of course, they hopefully get you to think about your priorities in writing an application. Do you want a full stack framework, which lets you write less code, provides various security features, helps you to achieve code re-use, and make your application more testable and maintainable? Or are you willing to sacrifice all that for speed?
I was reading the question "Raw Servlet vs. Spring MVC" and was wondering if Spring MVC might slow down or blow up the memory consumption of your application compared with raw servlet?
Note: I originally asked it as a comment in the question mentioned above and was then kindly summoned to post it as a separate question.
Define "blow up". Define "slow down".
Of course memory usage will be higher, and of course performance will be lower.
How much higher, and lower compared to the additional functionality and flexibility Spring provides is the real question, and not knowing anything about the hypothetical app, it's impossible to say.
Building a testable, extensible, well-architected servlet-only app would involved re-implementing a lot of the functionality Spring provides. Which would you prefer to do--re-implement some (essentially) industry-standard code to the same degree it's been implemented and then write your app, or just write your app? And which would your boss prefer you do?
When people mention that Spring is a lightweight containter compared to other frameworks, do they mean? That it occupies less memory in the system or it does not have the operations like start stop that we have for EJB containers and it doesn't use a special container?
What makes Spring a lightweight container?
Whether it is "lightweight" or "heavyweight", it is all about comparison. We consider Spring to be lightweight when we are comparing to normal J2EE container. It is lightweight in the sense of extra memory footprint for the facilities provided (e.g. Transaction Control, Life Cycle, Component dependency management)
However, there are sometimes other criteria to compare for the "weight" of a container, e.g. intrusiveness in design and implementation; facilities provided etc.
Ironically, Spring is sometimes treated as heavy weight container when compared to other POJO-based container, like Guice and Plexus.
Spring calls itself 'lightweight' because you don't need all of Spring to use part of it. For example, you can use Spring JDBC without Spring MVC.
Spring provides various modules for different purposes; you can just inject dependencies according to your required module. That is, you don't need to download or inject all dependencies or all JARs to use a particular module.
If you want to run a Java EE application, you can't just create a small application that will run on its own. You will need a Java EE application server to run your application, such as Glassfish, WebLogic or WebSphere. Most application servers are big and complex pieces of software, that are not trivial to install or configure.
You don't need such a thing with Spring. You can use Spring dependency injection, for example, in any small, standalone program.
I think "lightweight" is mostly a buzz-word. It's meaning is highly subjective and based on context. It can mean "low memory footprint", it can be low execution overhead, low start-up overhead. People also use it to differentiate between some perceived level of complexity and/or learning-curve. In any case, it's assuredly relative as there is no defined point on any scale where "light" becomes "heavy" in terms of "weight".
I personally think it's a dangerous word since it has no real, quantifiable meaning. It's something people throw into architecture proposals to beef up the "pro" section of a certain framework they want to use anyway. If you see or hear it being used in any such situation, it's a perfect opportunity to ask "what does that mean?". If you get an angry or frustrated response (combined with rolling of eyes and shaking of head), it means that the person has decided on a certain architecture, but hasn't managed to formulate coherent or objective reasons for it.
EDIT: not sure I would categorize spring as a "container" either, but that's a similar apples and oranges discussion. I'd call it a framework.
Spring is light weight becouse other J2ee container especially EJB2.1 require more configuration, It can have lot of do nothing code to ,it have complex directory structure for packing applications, overall it took extra memory;on other hand spring minimizes all this things.so it light weight.
I think one can also say that spring is light weight because it uses POJO(Plain old java object) .POJO class does not require to implement,extends technologies specific API(Interfaces,Classes) or it is not bounded to any technology specific API
We have started to use spring aop for cross cutting aspects of our application (security & caching at the moment).
My manager worries about the performance impact of this technology although he fully understands the benefits.
My question, did you encounter performance problems introduced by the use of aop (specifically spring aop)?
As long as you have control of your AOP I think it's efficient. We did have performance problems anyway, so by own reasoning we were not fully in control ;) This was mostly because it's important that anyone that writes aspects has full understanding of all the other aspects in the system and how they interrelate. If you start doing "smart" things you can outsmart yourself in a jiffy. Doing smart things in a large project with lots of people who only see small parts of the system can be very dangerous performance-wise. This advice probably applies without AOP too, but AOP lets you shoot yourself in the foot in some real elegant ways.
Spring also uses proxying for scope-manipluations and thats an area where it's easy to get undesired performance losses.
But given that you have control, the only real pain point with AOP is the effect on debugging.
If performance is going to be a concern, we have used AspectJ to great effect.
Because it uses bytecode weaving (compile time vs. runtime makes quite the difference) it's one of the fastest AOP frameworks out there. See: AOP Benchmarks
When I used it, I didn't - but then my application isn't your application.
If you use it for calls which are used in a very tight loop, there's the opportunity for a significant performance hit. If it's just used to check security once per request and cache various things, I can't see how it's likely to be significant - but that's why you should profile and benchmark your app.
I realise that "measure with your app" probably isn't the answer you were looking for, but it may well be the one you guessed you'd get :)
If you are using proxy-based AOP, you are talking about 1 additional Java method invocation per aspect applied. The performance impact there is pretty negligible. The only real concern is the creation of the proxies but this usually happens just once on application startup. The SpringSource blog has a great post on this:
http://blog.springsource.com/2007/07/19/debunking-myths-proxies-impact-performance/
In theory, if you use AOP do to what you could do with hard coupling, there is no performance issue, no overhead and no extra method calls unless you weave for nothing. AOP Framework offers you a way to remove the hard coupling and factorize your cross-cutting concern.
In practice, AOP Framework can introduce 3 types of overhead:
fire-time
interception mechanic
consumer integration (way to develop an advice)
For more details you can refer to when-is-aop-code-executed.
Just be careful how you implement an advice because transversal code is a temptation for boxing/unboxing and reflection (expensive in term of performance).
Without an AOP Framework (hard coupling your cross-cutting concerns) you can develop your presumed advices (dedicated for each treatment) easier without boxing/unboxing and reflection.
You have to know that most AOP Framework don't offer the way to avoid totally boxing/unboxing and reflection.
I developed one to respond to most of missing needs concentrated to 3 things :
user friendly (lightweight, easy to learn)
transparent (no breaking code to include)
efficient (no boxing/unboxing, no reflection in nominal user code and good interception mechanic)
You can find my open source project here : Puresharp API .net 4.5.2+ previously NConcern .NET AOP Framework
11 years after the question, look how degenerated this situation is.
Example: the vast majority think it is ok and normal to put a simple #Transactional spring java annotation to some method and let spring do the bridge between caller and callee proxied components. Now they have 20+ stackframes of undebuggable 'magic' code. The JIT compiler is rapidly exceeded and can no longer attempt inlining, or ends up bloating memory with tons of generated classes.
There is no limit to lazyness in this era of 'framework users'. No wonder e2e times for trivial http calls went from 100ms to 10 seconds. No wonder you need 2GB to run a lousy servlet container that used to run in 128MB. And don't get me started on the cost of logging exception stacktraces...
Have you ever thought about an AOP tools that adding aspects to object at runtime when you need? There is one for .net "Add Aspects to Object Using Dynamic Decorator" (http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/aspectddecorator.aspx). I believe you can write a similiar one for Java.
If you are using some one framework for aspects there can be some performance issues .Next if you are creating abstraction above some one framework and aspects handling is done from framework then its very difficult to find out the cause of the problem relating to performance issues . If you are really concern about performance and small time slice concern more ,i suggest to write own aspects .No one want to reinvent the wheel but sometime for better it can be best.You can write own implementation of AOP alliance abstraction .
i have used spring AOP in a batch process in my current project to transaction manage a database.
At first, it was figured that there wouldn't be a performance problem, but we didn't figure into the equation that we called the database thousands of times. one aspect call in aop doesn't affect performance much, but multiply that by thousands, and it turns out the new system was worse than the old one, due to these extra method calls.
I'd say that aop is a great system to use, but try to take note on how many methods calls are added to your application