Assume there are two implementations of a single interface, and these beans are declared as beans in the spring configuration xml. Now, I would need only one implementation of the interface based on the system property. And, I don't wanna create the second implementation of the bean. How can I do this? I looked at this blog but then below snippet of the code from this blog uses "new" operate to create the beans. In my case the beans are declared in the spring configuration file.
http://www.intertech.com/Blog/spring-4-conditional-bean-configuration/
#CONFIGURATION
PUBLIC CLASS MYCONFIGURATION {
#BEAN(NAME="EMAILERSERVICE")
#CONDITIONAL(WINDOWSCONDITION.CLASS)
PUBLIC EMAILSERVICE WINDOWSEMAILERSERVICE(){
RETURN NEW WINDOWSEMAILSERVICE();
}
#BEAN(NAME="EMAILERSERVICE")
#CONDITIONAL(LINUXCONDITION.CLASS)
PUBLIC EMAILSERVICE LINUXEMAILERSERVICE(){
RETURN NEW LINUXEMAILSERVICE();
}
Related
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.
Spring uses either JDK dynamic proxies or CGLIB to create the proxy for a given target object. If a class is annotated with #Configuration, then CGLIB is used.
However, one limitation of Spring AOP is that once the call has finally reached the target object, any method calls that it may make on itself are going to be invoked against the this reference, and not the proxy. This piece of information is important to remember when using #Transactional and in other places as well.
So having that knowledge, in the code below, is Spring injecting the actual instance or the proxy of SimpleBean?
#Configuration
public class Config {
#Bean
public SimpleBean simpleBean() {
return new SimpleBean();
}
#Bean
public SimpleBeanConsumer simpleBeanConsumer() {
return new SimpleBeanConsumer(simpleBean()); //<---
}
}
And what is the behavior if a class is annotation with #Component?
Let me give you another perspective.
Say there is an another bean AnotherBeanConsumer that also needs a simpleBean. Simple Bean has a Singleton scope:
#Configuration
public class Config {
#Bean
public SimpleBean simpleBean() {
return new SimpleBean();
}
#Bean
public SimpleBeanConsumer simpleBeanConsumer() {
return new SimpleBeanConsumer(simpleBean());
}
#Bean
public AnotherBeanConsumer anotherBeanConsumer() {
return new AnotherBeanConsumer(simpleBean());
}
}
Now the question is, how its possible that two calls to simpleBean() made from different methods simpleBeanConsumer and anotherBeanConsumer return the same instance of the simple bean (since its a singleton obviously)?
IMO (and disclaimer, I'm not affiliated with spring or something), This is the main reason of creating proxies that wrap Configurations.
Now indeed Spring AOP has a limitation of calling methods just as you've stated, however who said that spring under-the-hood uses spring AOP? The bytecode instrumentation done on much lower levels doesn't have a limitation like this. After all creating a proxy means: "create a proxy object that will have the same interface but will alter the behavior", right?
For example if you use CGLIB that uses inheritance you could create a proxy out of configuration that looks like this (schematically):
class CGLIB_GENERATED_PROXY extends Config {
private Map<String, Object> singletonBeans;
public SimpleBean simpleBean() {
String name = getNameFromMethodNameMaybePrecached();
if(singletonBeans.get(name) != null) {
return singletonBeans.get(name);
}
else {
SimpleBean bean = super.simpleBean();
singletonBeans.put(name, bean);
return bean;
}
}
....
}
Of course its only a schematic picture, in real life there is an application context that basically provides the access to the map like this, but you get the point.
If its not enough, then there are some even more sophisticated frameworks that spring must make use of in order to load a configuration (like ASM)...
Here is an example:
If you use #ConditionalOnClass(A.class) and the class doesn't really exist in runtime, how spring can load the bytecode of the configuration that uses this configuration and not fail on something like NoClassDefFoundException?
My point is that it goes far beyond the spring AOP, and has its quirks :)
Having said that, nothing that I've describe above requires the real components to be always wrapped in Proxies of any kind. So in the most trivial case, when SimpleBean does not by itself have some annotations that require proxy generation (stuff like #Cached, #Transactional and so forth), Spring won't wrap the object of that type and you'll get a plain SimpleBean object.
There is a spring project A which is completely annotation based.
I need to override some beans conditionally in project B which is a legacy application using Spring 4.1.3 and uses xml based config.
There is FooConfig which is configuring beans using #ComponentScan. This config is a third party code for me. i.e I do not have access for this
#ComponentScan(basePackages = {"com.foo.bean"})
#Configuration
public class FooConfig {
}
I have created a BarConfig at my end, which imports this FooConfig and overrides some beans based on a condition. This is achieved using #Conditional
#Configuration
#Import(FooConfig.class)
public class BarConfig {
#Bean(name="helloService")
#Conditional(IsSpanishCondition.class)
public HelloService getHelloService() {
return new HelloService() {
#Override
public String getGreeting(String name) {
return "Hola "+name;
}
};
}
}
And I have included BarConfig in my application-context.xml
<context:annotation-config/>
<bean class="com.foo.config.BarConfig"/>
While this approach works flawlessly in Spring 5.1.2.RELEASE, it does not work in Spring 4.1.3.RELEASE
00:14:20.617 [main] INFO org.springframework.context.annotation.ConfigurationClassBeanDefinitionReader - Skipping bean definition for [BeanMethod:name=getHelloService,declaringClass=com.foo.config.BarConfig]: a definition for bean 'helloService' already exists. This top-level bean definition is considered as an override.
Also, I have observed the same issue in Spring 4 in a completely annotation based context as well. i.e. it is not because of xml and annotation config mix but due to the Spring versions used here
Questions
What changed in Spring 5?
Is there any rule of thumb while working with a Spring application that uses both xml and annotation config especially when it comes to overriding the beans?
Also FTR, these are the solutions that worked
1.Overriding the beans using BeanPostProcessor
2.Using profiles. But this wouldn't work for complicated conditions.
#Profile("ENGLISH")
#Configuration
#Import(FooConfig.class)
public class EnglishConfig {
}
#Profile("SPANISH")
#Configuration
public class SpanishConfig {
#Bean(name="helloService")
public HelloService getHelloService() {
return new HelloService() {
#Override
public String getGreeting(String name) {
return "Hola "+name;
}
};
}
}
The issue here is that you are trying to override a xml bean from a #Configuration class, now I'm not 100% sure, but in spring 4 a xml bean still had precedence in choosing a bean, so the #Configuration beans would not get permission to overwrite the xml bean. Which was resolved in spring 5.
Your approach to use BeanPostProcessor is i guess the only viable solution for this.
I'm thinking maybe you could use a different bean name, implement your own behaviour and use #Qualifier annotation to choose which bean will get selected?
#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
In a Spring MVC proyect I'm using Spring Data in the persistence layer so I have a bunch of repositories to access the data. I also have a layer for services so I have things like UserService or AuthorityService that use that repositories.
The problem is that I've been asked to create an interface to be able to change the implementation of the persistence layer (using DAOs for example) without have to touch a single line in the services. How can I specify in an Autowired of that interface what implementation to use? I´m using Java based config and I don't see how to inject it.
I also have a problem with the name of these new interfaces. Normally I would use a name like UserService but Spring use Service for the service layer so, What name is suitable for this type of interface?
You could mark the new implementation of the DAO as #Primary. Indicates that a bean should be given preference when multiple candidates are qualified to autowire a single-valued dependency. If exactly one 'primary' bean exists among the candidates, it will be the autowired value.
#Component
public class FooService {
private FooRepository fooRepository;
#Autowired
public FooService(FooRepository fooRepository) {
this.fooRepository = fooRepository;
}
}
#Component
public class JdbcFooRepository {
public JdbcFooService(DataSource dataSource) {
// ...
}
}
#Primary
#Component
public class HibernateFooRepository {
public HibernateFooService(SessionFactory sessionFactory) {
// ...
}
}
Because HibernateFooRepository is marked with #Primary, it will be injected preferentially over the jdbc-based variant assuming both are present as beans within the same Spring application context, which is often the case when component-scanning is applied liberally.
This annotation is semantically equivalent to the element's primary attribute in Spring XML.
I didn't completely follow your second question.