I'm trying to figure out how to get the values of a properties file into my Spring Environment properties.
The pre Spring 3.1 way of doing this would be something like:
<context:property-placeholder location="classpath:my.properties" />
<bean id="myBean" class="com.whatever.MyBean">
<property name="someValue" value="${myProps.value}" />
<!-- etc -->
</bean>
I could have also done this:
public class MyBean {
#Value(value = "#{myProps.value}")
private String someValue;
}
Now that I can ostensibly pull properties from the Environment class, this seems like a much cleaner way of getting properties than using the clunky #{myProps.value} syntax in either my xml or my bean itself.
I tried this in my XML:
<bean
class="org.springframework.context.support.PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer">
<property name="location">
<value>classpath:my.properties</value>
</property>
</bean>
But the properties are not added to Environment.
I understand that I can use the PropertySource attribute, but I'm not doing my configuration with annotations.
So how can I set up my bean / xml so that variables setup in my props are available in Environment? Moreover, how can I inject those values into my bean without having to explicitly say "environmentInstance.getProperty("myProps.value")?
For the web applications
If you want to have Environment populated before the XML bean definitions are processed, you should implement a ApplicationContextInitializer(), as described in the Spring Source blog
<context-param>
<param-name>contextInitializerClasses</param-name>
<param-value>com.bank.MyInitializer</param-value>
</context-param>
Here is a slightly modified version of the example from the blog
public class MyInitializer implements
ApplicationContextInitializer<ConfigurableWebApplicationContext> {
public void initialize(ConfigurableWebApplicationContext ctx) {
ResourcePropertySource ps;
try {
ps = new ResourcePropertySource(new ClassPathResource(
"my.properties"));
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new AssertionError("Resources for my.properties not found.");
}
ctx.getEnvironment().getPropertySources().addFirst(ps);
}
}
For the standalone applications
Basically the same thing, you can modify the environment of the AbstractApplicationContext directly
ResourcePropertySource ps;
try {
ps = new ResourcePropertySource(new ClassPathResource(
"my.properties"));
}catch (IOException e) {
throw new AssertionError("Resources for my.properties not found.");
}
//assuming that ctx is an AbstractApplicationContext
ctx.getEnvironment().getPropertySources().addFirst(ps);
P.S. the earlier version of this answer showed an attempt to modify the Environment from the bean but it seems to be an antipattern spreading on SO, because for sure you would like to have Environment property sources list populated even before the XmlBeanDefinitionReader starts to process XML to make placeholders work inside the <import/> statement.
My understanding is also a little addled but this is what I could make out:
Environment is a way to indicate the currently active profiles (and profiles are a way to selectively create beans)
PropertySources can be associated to an environment and the way to do that is using #PropertySource annotation, there does not seem to be an xml equivalent to do this.
Your understanding actually should be the other way round, AFAIK: when you declare <context:property-placeholder the placeholder will resolve properties against the locally declared properties and can fallback on the property sources declared in the environment, environment itself does not get modified with the new properties. Again,the only way to add properties to the environment itself seems to be through the #PropertySource annotation
Related
I have a question around the usage of new keyword being used when using java configuration in spring. What is the need of using new keyword
Refer below mentioned example:
Code implemented using Java Config
#Configuration
public class HelloWorldConfig {
#Bean
public HelloWorld helloWorld(){
return new HelloWorld();
}
}
The above code will be equivalent to the following XML configuration
<beans>
<bean id = "helloWorld" class = "com.test.HelloWorld" />
</beans>
In XML config, we do not use new keyword whereas in java config we are using new keyword. can someone please explain the difference
In the XML configuration, you explain to the system what class should be instanciated (there is a "new" but it is behind the scene) but in the Java Config you actually have to return an instance so that is why we use the 'new' keyword. 'new' simply creates an instance of your class.
The two examples shown in question are not really equivalent.
What the
<beans>
<bean id="helloWorld"
class="com.test.HelloWorld" />
</beans>
really does, is it tells Spring to instantiate class com.test.HelloWorld, and name the resulting bean "helloWorld".
Then the java-config approach is not really doing this. Instead this follows the factory-method pattern, when we tell Spring, that the return value of the method is the bean, and the method name is the name of that bean.
An equivalent of that in XML would be the mentioned factory-method approach, which in this case would look something like this:
<beans>
<bean id="helloWorldConfig"
class="com.test.HelloWorldConfig" />
<bean id="helloWorld"
factory-bean="helloWorldConfig"
factory-method="helloWorld" />
</beans>
Note that there are several approaches to factory-method. In the above, we are assuming, the `helloWorldConfig" is the factory, and we're specifying the method on that bean. Theare are cases with static factory methods too. See here for more examples.
<beans>
<bean id = "helloWorld" class = "com.test.HelloWorld" />
</beans>
This XML configurations tells Spring to "create an instance of com.test.HelloWorld and put it in the bean context with bean id helloWorld".
#Configuration
public class HelloWorldConfig {
#Bean
public HelloWorld helloWorld(){
return new HelloWorld();
}
}
In this Java configuration, we are returning an instance of com.test.HelloWorld. Because of the #Bean annotation, this instance is put into the bean context. As no specific bean id is given, the bean id is derived from the method hellowWorld() and thus becomes helloWorld.
As you can see, both configurations require an instance of com.test.HelloWorld. The XML configuration implicitly creates the instance whereas in the Java configuration you have to explicitly do it yourself.
In my Grails app, I need access to configuration exposed by a Java class similar to the below
public class Config {
private Properties properties = new Properties();
static load(String path) {
File configFile = new File(path);
FileReader fileReader = new FileReader(configFile);
properties.load(fileReader);
}
String getProperty(String name) {
properties.getProperty(name);
}
}
I trigger the initialisation of this class in the first line of Bootstrap.groovy by calling Config.load("/conf.properties"). However, the initialization of various Spring beans needs properties that are exposed by Config, but by the time Bootstrap.groovy is executed, Spring initialization has already completed.
So I need to find a way to call Config.load() before construction of the Spring beans, is this possible? I guess there might be an event handler available in /script/_Events.groovy that I could invoke it from, but I'm not sure which handlers are available.
Unfortunately, changing the source code of Config.java isn't an option, and neither is eliminating my usage of this class.
You could try declaring a suitable bean in web-app/WEB-INF/applicationContext.xml, which is the definition of the root web application context as opposed to the GrailsApplication's internal context.
<bean id="initConfig" class="org.springframework.beans.factory.config.MethodInvokingFactoryBean">
<property name="targetClass" value="com.example.Config" />
<property name="targetMethod" value="load" />
<property name="arguments">
<list><value>/conf.properties</value></list>
</property>
</bean>
and modify the grailsApplication bean to depend on that:
<bean id="grailsApplication" depends-on="initConfig" class="...">
I noticed that if you define a bean with same id in two xml files, it would be overiden in the second file.
Say in file a.xml i have
<bean id="abc" />
Say in file b.xml i have
<bean id="abc" />
then the bean "abc" of b.xml is picked up. Is there a way in Spring to stop from overiding i.e should be unique no matter how many xml have the bean abc.
You can disable the feature to disallow beanoverriding by calling the setAllowBeanDefinitionOverriding and pass false. This has to be done early on before anything is loaded. You would either need to create your own custom ContextLoader for this or (if you are on Spring 3.1 or up) you can create an ApplicationContextInitializer and register this in your web.xml.
public class OverrideDisablingApplicationContextInitializer implements ApplicationContextInitializer {
public void void initialize(<? extends ConfigurableApplicationContext> applicationContext);
if (applicationContext instanceof AbstractRefreshableApplicationContext) {
(AbstractRefreshableApplicationContext (applicationContext)).setAllowBeanDefinitionOverriding(false);
}
}
in your web.xml add the following (for the ContextLoaderListener use an init-param for the DispatcherServlet when needed)
<context-param>
<param-name>contextInitializerClasses</param-name>
<param-value>your.package.here.OverrideDisablingApplicationContextInitializer<param-value>
</context-param>
From the top of my head this should disable the overriding behavior. If you use springs WebApplicationInitializer it is even easier as you are probably constructing the ApplicationContext yourself, you can then simply call the method directly and no ApplicationContextInitializer is needed.
Links
ApplicationContextInitializer javadoc
AbstractRefreshableApplicationContext.setAllowBeanDefinitionOverriding javadoc
Also:
final ClassPathXmlApplicationContext ctx = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext();
ctx.setAllowBeanDefinitionOverriding(false);
ctx.setConfigLocations(shardContextImport);
ctx.setParent(refreshedEvent.getApplicationContext());
ctx.refresh();
I've been struggling with a configuration which requires a knowledge in AOP.
i must admit that AOP is that part i'm trying to get for a while without success.
It seems that my shiro annotations are not scanned and thus are ignored.
i've tried using shiro 1.1.0+ maven3+spring 3.0.5.RELEASE, hibernate 3.6.1.Final with ZK 5.0.6.
i got my hibernaterealm working , talking to database, i got the authentication working, i successfully(i believe) get the roles and permission loaded.
so to test the authorization side i have somewhere in my code this :
Subject currentUser = SecurityUtils.getSubject();
if (!currentUser.isPermitted("businessaccount:list")) {
throw new AuthorizationException("User not authorized");
}
and it works fine.
So i know my permissions were loaded.i'll be convenient for me using annotations to i've put it in implementation class, because i didn't plan on using interface at first place with my controller classes which are extending ZK GenericForwardController.
i've seen this bug and i've decided to do a try with one interface with the #RequiresPersmissions on methods.
apparently it's still not working as in it's giving access to unauthorized subject.there is no error in my log.Maybe i'm doing something wrong here are snippet of the codes:
#Component("layouteventhandler")
public class LayoutEventHandlerImpl extends GenericForwardComposer implements LayoutEventHandler {
Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(LayoutEventHandlerImpl.class);
Menuitem logout;
//...
#Override
public void onClick$pAccounts() {
try {
execution.sendRedirect("/accounts/personal/list");
} catch (Exception ex) {
logger.info("Error redirecting to personal accounts", ex);
}
}
#Override
public void onClick$bAccounts() {
try {
execution.sendRedirect("/accounts/business/list");
} catch (Exception ex) {
logger.info("Error redirecting to business accounts", ex);
}
}
//.....
}
its interface it :
public interface LayoutEventHandler {
#RequiresPermissions(value="personalaccount:list")
public void onClick$pAccounts();
#RequiresPermissions(value="businessaccount:list")
public void onClick$bAccounts();
//.....
}
here is my shiro applicationcontext
<bean id="hibernateRealm" class="com.personal.project.admin.webapp.security.DatabaseRealm" />
<bean id="securityManager" class="org.apache.shiro.web.mgt.DefaultWebSecurityManager">
<property name="realm" ref="hibernateRealm" />
</bean>
<bean id="lifecycleBeanPostProcessor" class="org.apache.shiro.spring.LifecycleBeanPostProcessor" />
<bean class="org.springframework.aop.framework.autoproxy.DefaultAdvisorAutoProxyCreator"
depends-on="lifecycleBeanPostProcessor">
<!-- <property name="proxyTargetClass" value="true" />-->
</bean>
<bean class="org.apache.shiro.spring.security.interceptor.AuthorizationAttributeSourceAdvisor">
<property name="securityManager" ref="securityManager"/>
</bean>
<!-- Secure Spring remoting: Ensure any Spring Remoting method invocations can be associated
with a Subject for security checks. -->
<bean id="secureRemoteInvocationExecutor" class="org.apache.shiro.spring.remoting.SecureRemoteInvocationExecutor">
<property name="securityManager" ref="securityManager"/>
</bean>
<!-- ... -->
is it in there something that i should do? thanks for reading and helping out
I don't know Shiro, but I'm guessing that you've put annotations on your bean classes which implement interfaces and then you're proxying them for security, transactions, and/or something else. When that happens, the object that's returned is a JDK dynamic proxy, which isn't an instance of your bean's concrete class, only of the interface it implements. Therefore any annotation scanning that depends on annotations in the concrete class won't find them.
To expand on Ryan Stewart's answer, you need to add
#Scope(proxyMode = ScopedProxyMode.TARGET_CLASS)
to the implementing class (not the interface) and move the Shiro annotations to it.
I encountered a similar problem when I was running two spring contexts. There is a parent root context that defined Database, Service, Security and non-SpringMVC web beans and a child web context for a Spring MVC REST api which contained the Controllers I want to proxy. The Configuration for each context was class path scanning separate packages.
In this case make sure that the DefaultAdvisorAutoProxyCreator and the AuthorizationAttributeSourceAdvisor beans that are requied are defined in the child web context (i.e. where the Rest Controllers are class path scanned) as defining them in the parent context does not work (the documentation on the DefaultAdvisorAutoProxyCreate is quite clear about this in hindsight!).
Posting this in case someone else encounters the same issue.
I have following code inside my class
public void startListeners() throws Exception {
List<QueueConfiguration> queueConfigs = queueConfigResolver.getQueueConfigurations();
for(QueueConfiguration queueConfig : queueConfigs){
//TODO : work on this make it more testable
ICustomListener readerListener = new MyCustomListener(queueConfig);
readerListeners.add(readerListener);
readerListener.start();
}
}
I am using Spring for dependency injection(not in this case but overall). Now there two problems with this code.
I cannot put mock for each of the listeners created, while testing.
I dont want to use ApplicationContext.getBean() because it will have same affect. AFAIK spring cannot do this dynamically , but any other pointers?
As far as I can understand, you want to create a new bean instead of
ICustomListener readerListener = new MyCustomListener(queueConfig);
If that is the case, creating a factory for mycustomlistener and using
public abstract TestClient createTestClient();
to create your beans, and defining
<bean id="testClient" class="com.myproject.testbeans.TestClient" scope="prototype">
</bean>
<bean id="testClientFactory" class="com.myproject.testbeans.TestClientFactory">
<lookup-method name="createTestClient" bean="testClient" />
</bean>
in your context will solve your problem. This way, every time the createTestClient method of the factory is called, a new bean is created and given to your code. However, you have to give the config object via a setter instead of the constructor.