I'm just learning Spring Security, and a lot of Spring's documentation appears to use Java-based bean configuration (as opposed to XML.) Overall, this seems to be the way a lot of their projects are going. However, portions of their documentation tend to start with Java configuration and then switch to XML config later on. I found a blurb in one document (http://docs.spring.io/spring-security/site/docs/3.2.0.RELEASE/reference/htmlsingle/) stating the following:
Spring Security’s Java Configuration does not expose every property of every object that it configures. This simplifies the configuration for a majority of users. . . . While there are good reasons to not directly expose every property, users may still need more advanced configuration options. To address this Spring Security introduces the concept of an ObjectPostProcessor which can used to modify or replace many of the Object instances created by the Java Configuration.
Can everything that can be done in XML configuration be done with Java config? Is there a definite direction that the Spring community is taking overall in terms of configuration style?
You can choose either java based or xml based configuration.Stick to one, don't mix both.But don't forget to use the annotation based configuration.You just need to annotate spring managed components with #component,#service etc.You don't need to have that bean defenition in xml or java class.
<context:annotation-config/>
<context:component-scan base-package="com.package"/>
or
#Configuration
#ComponentScan({"com.foo.bar", "org.foo.bar"})
http://docs.spring.io/spring-security/site/docs/3.2.0.RC2/reference/htmlsingle/#jc
You can use Java or XML based. But there is a thing
Usage of xml based configuration is decreasing in newer versions of Spring.
Like #EnableAutoConfiguration tag...
With this, web applications doesnt need any XML conf even web.xml
Related
I learning Spring boot and found that in some examples use the same properties with the prefix spring.jpa.properties while other do it without prefix.
For instance:
The article explains second level cahche https://www.baeldung.com/hibernate-second-level-cache and autor shows example of needed properties ( example on autor's gitHub):
hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache=true
hibernate.cache.region.factory_class=org.hibernate.cache.ehcache.EhCacheRegionFactory
But it did not work for me, and I spent few hours loking for the reason, but then i noticed, someone use prefix spring.jpa.properties. to get it working (Exact moment from video lesson):
spring.jpa.properties.hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache=true
spring.jpa.properties.hibernate.cache.region.factory_class=org.hibernate.cache.ehcache.EhCacheRegionFactory
Which perfectly worked for me.
So my questions are:
why are they working in different way?
how to understand which properties in which cases requires this prefix?
is it probably something related to my project settings OR Spring Boot version?
any other suggestions are appreciated :)
Thank you in advance!
There are a couple of things in play here. First the tutorial you use is using plain Spring not Spring Boot. Which means a manually configured EntityManagerFactory on which you directly can set the provider specific properties. Like hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache.
As you decided to use Spring Boot you don't have a manually configured EntityManagerFactory (although you could!). Which means you are using an autoconfigured EntityManagerFactory. Properties for this reside in the spring.jpa namespace for properties.
As it isn't feasible to specify properties for each and every extension for Hibernate (or other JPA providers) only some commonly used ones are exposed like spring.jpa.generate-ddl and a few provider specific ones in the spring.jpa.hibernate namespace. However to set all the other properties in an autoconfigured way there needed to be something else. Hence the spring.jpa.properties prefix. Anything specified in there will be passed on as is (without the said prefix ofcourse) to the EntityManagerFactory for configuration.
I am in the process of creating a Spring-based processor in NiFi using NiFi's SpringContextProcessor. SpringContextProcessor requires "Application Context config path" property to be set, which points to an XML configuration file. Spring has shifted away from XML based configs and towards #Configuration approach. How can NiFi's SpringContextProcessor be created using #Configuration?
Indeed, the processor currently now relies on ClassPathXmpApplicationContext. We can certainly add support for #Configured. However with that said you can easily have a place holder XML file that contains pointers to #Configured and other mechanisms provided by Spring (i.e., 'import').
Please raise JIRA to add #Configured support here -https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI/
It looks, from the source code, that Katharsis-spring module will only work with spring boot.
My question then, is it possible to configure a spring project in xml and load Katharsis without spring boot?
If so, how would you need to configure katharsis in spring xml?
Has anyone done this before and willing to share an example?
Thanks.
Only work with Spring boot? That doesn't seem possible. Just #Import(KatharsisConfigV2.class) on any configuration in your code and it should work.
As for xml config: By design, if it can be done in code it can be done in config.
Try that and let me know how you make out
With version 2.8.1 of katharsis, it is quite a challege to get this configured just in xml. So I looked at the master branch of the project and found that there are going to be some new features which will make it easier to configure with spring xml. I have created a sample project here you can use as reference for configuration:
Sample Spring/Katharsis Project with XML configuration
In the sample project I added the SpringServiceDiscovery class, and modified the KatharsisBoot class to make the configuration easier. With the next release of this project, I should be able to remove these 2 classes completely, and use the classes that come with katharsis.
The beans I needed to add to my root-context.xml file were the following:
io.katharsis.spring.KatharsisFilterV2
io.katharsis.spring.ErrorHandlerFilter
com.springkatharsisxml.katharsis.boot.KatharsisBoot
io.katharsis.queryParams.QueryParamsBuilder
io.katharsis.resource.registry.ConstantServiceUrlProvider
io.katharsis.queryParams.DefaultQueryParamsParser
io.katharsis.module.CoreModule
io.katharsis.resource.field.ResourceFieldNameTransformer
io.katharsis.spring.boot.KatharsisSpringBootProperties
I also needed to expose the jackson objectMapper bean, as it's not done so by default in xml.
I also used the org.springframework.web.filter.DelegatingFilterProxy for the katharsisFilter and errorHandlerFilter.
What are the significant differences defining spring configurations (beans and datasources) in Java using the #Configuration Annotation instead of XML config files. Matter of taste or is there more?
The most important difference between XML and Java config is that you have to recompile your java configuration if it changes.
With XML, you can (though you shouldn't, but maybe for hotfixes) just edit the file and add something, for example, a logger, a filter, other bean, etc., and just restart your application.
With Java, you would have to edit the source code, recompile either only the configuration .java files or the whole project and redeploy it.
Otherwise, it's a matter of taste. You can (or will be able to in 4.0) do everything in XML or everything in Java or mix it up.
I started learning spring today and i have a question regarding what happens to the annotations when java files with annotations is compiled ?.
The reason i am asking this is because of the fundamental difference i see when we choose to use the xml approach vs the annotations approach , and what i think is the philosophy of spring. The way i understand is spring says that all your java classes can be simple pojo's and all the spring related config should be kept independent (Like xml file.)
In case of developing spring application using xml *.java files have no idea about spring container and are compiled in to .class without any spring related dependencies.
But now when we annotate the .java file and the file is compiled the compiled file now has all spring related dependencies hard baked in to it and no longer are your classes simple pojo's.
Is this correct ? I am not sure if i am missing some thing here.
Annotations can be considered as metadata of a class or its element (method, field, local variable...). When you put annotation, you don't implement any behaviour. You just give additional info on an element.
That way, Spring, which is in charge of instanciating its bean can collect the info with reflection (see also this site) and process it.
To conclude, your Spring beans still remain POJO and there is no difference with the XML way (...from that point of view) since Spring gets from annotations the information it would have got from XML .
I think you are right and your question is justifiable, that's the way how I think about it too.
Not only compiled code but also dependency on spring jars bother me. Once you use this annotations your resulting jar depends on spring library.
It's reasonable to store beans in model according to DDD but spring is some kind of infrastructure layer so I didn't like the dependency.
Even if you would use XML, it's useful for few placed to use attributes. E.g. #Required attribute which is useful to verify that linked bean was injected. So, I've decide to use constructor dependency injection to omit this attribute, see my article. I completely leave out the dependency on spring in the code.
You can probably find such mind hook for many annotation you want/force to use.
You can use annotations only for your configuration classes, without marking them actual bean classes. In such scenario if you not use spring you just not load configuration classes.