I have a Spring Integration project that has several flows (some where between 10-15). I would like to keep my namespace clean since several flows might have similar sounding components (for ex - several flows might have a channel named fileValidatorChannel). I think I have a couple of different options to keep names from colliding with each other:
A. Preface every component name with the flow that it belongs to. For ex - flowAFileValidatorChannel, flowBFileValidatorChannel, etc
B. Create a context hierarchy where every flow is it's own context and every flow inheriting from a master context where all the common beans/sub-flows are.
What's the better approach? Is there are better way to keep my name space clean?
To be honest your problem isn't clear.
Any Spring Integration component is a bean finally. So, their ids are just to distinguish them from other bean.
Let's imaging if you don't have Spring Integration in your application. So, you would worry about some clean naming strategy for all your beans anyway?
From other side consider to use Spring Integration Flow project:
The goal is to support these, and potentially other semantics while providing better encapsulation and configuration options. Configuration is provided via properties and or referenced bean definitions. Each flow is initialized in a child application context. This allows you to configure multiple instances of the same flow differently.
Related
Sorry for potentially a silly question - but is it acceptable with Spring to create a one dedicated service, let's say ServiceFacade, inject 20-30 other services into it and then pass such a ServiceFacade reference as a parameter to different business logic? Will such approach lead to issues within the application?
Yes, it is possible, Spring will correctly handle a bean with 20-30 other dependencies. However it is discouraged from a design point of view. Instead of one ServiceFacade you might have multiple facades, each with manageable number of dependencies, e.g. 5 and a factory returning different facades instances.
I have an application with file-supplier Srping Cloud module included. My workflow is like track file creating/modifying in particular directory->push events to Kafka topic if there are such events. FileSupplierConfiguration is used to configure this file supplier. But now I have to track one more directory and push events to another relevant Kafka topic. So, there is an issue, because there is no possibility to include multiple FileSupplierConfiguration in project for configuration another file supplier. I remember that one of the main principles of microservices for which spring-cloud-stream was designed for is you do one thing and do it well without affecting others, but it still the same microservice with same tracking/pushing functionality but for another directory and topic. Is there any possibility to add one more file supplier with relevant configuration with file-supplier module? Or is the best solution for this issue to run one more application instance with another configuration?
Yes, the best way is to have another instance of this application, but with its own specific configuration properties. This is really how these functions have been designed: microservice based on the convention on configuration. What you are asking really contradicts with Spring Boot expectations. Imaging you'd need to connect to several data bases. So, you only can have a single JdbcTemplate auto-configured. The rest is only possible manually. But better to have the same code base which relies on the auto-configuration and may apply different props.
I have a use case where I would like build a common interface or service which can update entities of application. Example case is shown as below:
Now every application has to handle update functionality of entities. Rather than implementing update functionality in n application module. I would like to build a common interface or server in spring boot.
Service will be like below:
My question is how to design service/interface which can used for above scenario. Any api or tool which can help me to achieve this. I dont want to write code for update in every application module.
Thanks in advance.
Last year I was thinking about the similar concept to yours, but in Apache Camel framework context. I haven't got enough time and motivation to do so, but your post encouraged me to give it a try - perhaps mostly because I've found your concept very similar to mine.
This is how I see it:
So basically I considered an environment with application that might uses N modules/plugins that enriches application's features, i.e. processing feature etc. Application uses module/plugin when it is available in the classpath - considering Java background. When the module is not available application works without its functionality like it was never there. Moreover I wanted to implement it purely using framework capabilities - in this case Spring - without ugly hacks/ifs in the source code.
Three solutions come to my mind:
- using request/response interceptors and modifying(#ControllerAdvice)
- using Spring AOP to intercept method invocations in *Service proxy classes
- using Apache Camel framework to create a routes for processing entities
Here's the brief overview of POC that I implemented:
I've chosen Spring AOP because I've never been using it before on my own.
simple EmployeeService that simulates saving employee - EmployeeEntity
3 processors that simulates Processing Modules that could be located outside the application. These three modules change properties of EmployeeEntity in some way.
one Aspect that intercepts "save" method in EmployeeService and handles invocation of available processors
In the next steps I'd like to externalize these Processors so these are some kind of pluggable jar files.
I'm wondering if this is something that you wanted to achieve?
link to Spring AOP introduction here: https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/5.0.5.RELEASE/spring-framework-reference/core.html#aop
link to repository of mentioned POC: https://github.com/bkpawlowski/spring-aop
All websites state that the Spring core container is the basis for complete Spring framework i.e., it is used across
the all modules like AOP, JDBC module, Web module, etc. As per my understanding, the Spring core container's main purpose is
to inject dependencies, so avoiding the need of factory classes and methods. Is that correct?
Second question: When it is said, Spring core container is the basis for complete Spring framework (e.g., for Spring AOP). As per my understanding, in Spring AOP also, getting the object of classes like
ProxyFactoryBean is achieved by core container. Right?
Thirdly, it is stated that Spring core container avoids the need for programming the use of singletons. How come singleton
classes are avoided by core container?
yep
yep
All beans declared in Spring config files are singleton by default. They are instantiated when your application starts.
First off, your understanding of what you get from Spring is about right. So let's get on to your third question, the interesting one.
The key is it's not that you don't have singletons, it's that they're singletons by configuration. This is a vital difference, as it means you can avoid all the complicated singleton enforcement code (the source of frequent problems) and instead just write exceptionally simple programs that focus on the business end of things. This is particularly important when you are writing a program with non-trivial object lifetimes: for example, in a webapp it makes it very easy to manage the lifespan of objects that hold state associated with a user's session, since if the objects have session scope, they'll be “singleton per user session”. That's enormously easier to work with than many of the alternatives.
The fact that Spring can also help out with transactions is just perfect as transaction handling is distinctly non-trivial, and AOP is the best solution to them in Java that I've seen (other languages have other options open) with Spring supporting a pretty straight-forward way of doing it. Try to do it properly without if you don't believe me. Spring's pretty much wonderful.
If you have a library containing Spring beans that need to be wired together before an application can use them, does it make sense to include any sort of bean configuration file in the JAR (such as the /META-INF directory)? The idea is to give the application the option of importing this into its master Spring context configuration.
There may be more than one way to wire these beans, so I could provide a bean configuration file for each of the standard ways in which you'd typically wire them together.
Or, do I force the application to wire these up explicitly?
If it helps, the specifics of my problem involve a library I created to encapsulate our product's persistence layer. It contains Service, DAO and model beans. The DAO implementations currently use Hibernate (this probably won't change). Some of the DAO implementations need different kinds of Strategy beans injected into them (database encryption logic), depending on the type of database we are deploying on (MySQL vs SQL Server, etc). So we have potentially a few different configuration scenarios. I could also provide datasource bean configurations, relying on property substitution at the app level to inject all the particulars needed by the datasource.
Thanks for your input!
In this case, it's a good idea to provide some beans files, either as examples for documentation purposes, or as fully-fledged files ready for including into a wider context.
If your beans' wiring can get complex, then you shouldn't really leave it entirely up to the library client to figure it out.
This is more of a documentation and education task, really.