Have been trying to understand how to load a property file using Spring in java and populate java.util.Properties object.
Use this newly created property object as a constructor arguement for another bean.
Appreciate any pointers on this.
Thanks,
cabear
To load a properties file in Spring use the PropertiesFactoryBean to make it easier to use there is a properties tag in the util namespace you can use.
<util:properties id="props" location="location-of.properties" />
Then you have a bean named props which you can use as any regular bean.
<bean id="otherBean" class="my.app.MyClass" >
<constructor-arg ref="props" />
</bean>
When also using the property placeholder support you could use the same properties object again instead of loading it again, by referencing it using the properties-ref attribute of the property-placeholder tag.
<context:property-placeholder properties-ref="props" />
Here is how you read a properties file :
#Value("${memberaddedsubject}") // id of the content you want to read.
private String memberAddedSubject; // Taking content in String class.
To use this property file, you have to instruct spring, this way :
<util:properties id="props" location="your-location-to-props" />
Add the above line in your applicationContext.xml or the XML file you have(not web.xml)
I have put my properties file in /projectname/resources/.
I hope this is what you are looking for, if not, let me know.
I am a pretty newcomer for Spring Framework.
This is regarding referencing another bean using ref attribute.
I have a bean definition for an action class like below.
<bean name="/abc" class="com.example.actions.Action" scope="singleton">
<property name="businessLogic" ref="/pqr"/>
</bean>
I am trying to inject another bean into this bean using ref attribute (ie "/pqr").
<bean name="/pqr" class="com.example.businesslogic.PqrBL" scope="prototype" />
Now my question how normal is it to use name="/pqr" kind of a notation for a bean which is not a definition for some action class ? By convention is it an acceptable normal scenario ?
PS: please let me know if information provided is incomplete or the question is not clear.
Thanks
The Spring reference states that
The convention is to use the standard Java convention for instance field names when
naming beans. That is, bean names start with a lowercase letter, and are camel-cased from
then on. Examples of such names would be (without quotes) 'accountManager',
'accountService', 'userDao', 'loginController', and so forth.
It is not normal to use "/pqr" as a bean name but you can do it . I would prefer using more user friendly names to the beans than using a "path" .
Check here for the convention .
Hello I wan't to know how can I set up a bean so that it sets the ScatteredAquireTask to "True".
I've been trying:
<bean id="c3p0Props" class="com.mchange.v2.resourcepool.BasicResourcePool.ScatteredAcquireTask" >
<property name="USE_SCATTTERED_ACQUIRE_TASK" value="true" />
</bean>
I also tried ...resourcepool.experimental.useScatteredAcquireTask... didn't worked. I'm not sure how can I set this on spring. I'm using 0.9.1.2, can't go to 0.9.2.prep1 at the moment. Thanks.
That's because USE_SCATTTERED_ACQUIRE_TASK isn't a property of the ScatteredAcquireTask class (i.e. there's no method called setUSE_SCATTTERED_ACQUIRE_TASK), it's an internal static field of the class that's not accessible to Spring.
You're not going to be able to set that values in a Spring bean defintion, you need to find out how to influence that value by some other means.
Before upgrading to Spring 3 I had this in my applicationContext.xml file:
<bean class="com.northgateis.pole.ws.PolePayloadValidatingInterceptor">
<property name="validateRequest" value="${validateRequest}" />
<property name="validateResponse" value="${validateResponse}" />
</bean>
where ${validateRequest) and ${validateRequest) refer to properties that may or may not be defined in my properties file.
In Spring 2, if these proeprties were not present in the properties file the setters on the bean were not called and so the defaults hard-coded in PolePayloadValidatingInterceptor were used.
After upgrading to Spring 3, it seems the behaviour is different: If the properties are not present in the properties file I get the following exception:
SEVERE: Exception sending context initialized event to listener instance of class org.springframework.web.context.ContextLoaderListener
org.springframework.beans.factory.BeanDefinitionStoreException: Invalid bean definition with name 'annotationMapping' defined in class path resource [com/northgateis/pole/ws/applicationContext-ws.xml]: Could not resolve placeholder 'validateRequest'
at org.springframework.beans.factory.config.PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer.processProperties(PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer.java:272)
at org.springframework.beans.factory.config.PropertyResourceConfigurer.postProcessBeanFactory(PropertyResourceConfigurer.java:75)
at org.springframework.context.support.AbstractApplicationContext.invokeBeanFactoryPostProcessors(AbstractApplicationContext.java:640)
at org.springframework.context.support.AbstractApplicationContext.invokeBeanFactoryPostProcessors(AbstractApplicationContext.java:615)
at org.springframework.context.support.AbstractApplicationContext.refresh(AbstractApplicationContext.java:405)
at org.springframework.web.context.ContextLoader.createWebApplicationContext(ContextLoader.java:272)
I tried dabbling with Spring EL but the following doesn't seem to work:
<bean class="com.northgateis.pole.ws.PolePayloadValidatingInterceptor">
<property name="validateRequest" value="${validateRequest?:true}" />
<property name="validateResponse" value="${validateResponse?:false}" />
</bean>
The value after the Elvis operator is always used, even when the properties are defined in the proeprties file. Interesting that the syntax is accepted.
Any suggestions?
It looks like Spring 3's handling of default values with the Elvis operator was rather broken. This has apparently been fixed (see SPR-7209) in the fresh-out-of-the-oven Spring 3.0.3, and the correct syntax should be the rather baroque:
#{${validateRequest}?:true}
There's no need for Spring EL for setting a default value for a missing property when resolving it with a placeholder configurer. Simply use ${validateRequest:true}. The "Elvis operator" is not concerned with resolving placeholders, it just relies on whatever input the placeholder configurer provides.
See SPR-4785.
I'm reviewing some Spring code, and I see a few bean defs that do not have an id or a name.
The person who did it is not around to ask.
The application is working fine.
I am not familiar what this necessarily means.
Anybody know if this means anything in particular?
Some beans are not required to be accessed by other beans in the context file or programmatically. So as mentioned by JacobM, they don't require an id or name as they're not referenced.
Such an example would be a PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer, which reads a property file, then allows for runtime property replacement in the context definition.
The example definition would be
<bean class="org.springframework.beans.factory.config.PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer">
<property name="location" value="myapp.properties" />
</bean>
The JavaDoc provides further documentation on this object, but further on in the file you can reference properties from your file by just using the standard template replace placeholder ${...}.
One possibility is that you can define a bean in place, and so you don't need an id since you don't need to refer to it from anywhere else. Say I have a Foo object that takes a Bar property:
<bean id="foo" class="Foo">
<property name="bar">
<bean class="Bar">
</property>
</bean>
The Bar bean doesn't need a name because it's only used to set that one property.
Check the possibility of auto-wiring. An other bean could reference the unnamed bean by having the autowire property set to byType.
This is just a guess. Without a concrete example, I can't say any more.
The id and name attributes are optional and are used to reference the bean definition from other definitions. Look at the official Spring documentation for more detail.
take a look at https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/4.3.12.RELEASE/spring-framework-reference/htmlsingle/#beans-beanname it says,
You are not required to supply a name or id for a bean. If no name or id is supplied explicitly, the container generates a unique name for that bean. However, if you want to refer to that bean by name, through the use of the ref element or Service Locator style lookup, you must provide a name. Motivations for not supplying a name are related to using inner beans and autowiring collaborators.
Also, Beans such as BeanPostProcessor, BeanFactoryPostProcessor and PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer are automatically detected by application context and typically won't have name
If you consider any spring bean, Spring mandates it to have an identifier. In case, if you have not provided any identifier (via id or name attribute) to a bean in your configuration, you won't run into exceptions. Spring will manage such situation by assigning a default identifier. it has BeanNameGenerator to assign default name. <bean class="com.package.name.TestBean"> will be named as "com.package.name.TestBean" #Bean kind of beans will have its method name as bean name
thus, in your code, for some reason, you can skip naming few beans and the code still works if you are accessing those beans with their default name
credits : https://www.javacodegeeks.com/2013/02/spring-bean-names.html
Beans without id or name can still be referenced by the class name. Spring names those beans automatically using the class name and if there is more than one bean of the same class it appends a number to them.
Anonymous beans are usually defined inside a property tag, but if they're just there maybe there's autowiring configured in some other beans.
Anyway, I think adding a name or id to those beans won't break your application.
As a couple of people mentioned above, not all bean-grabbing is based on name/ID; some of it is based on type. For example, there is a method
BeanFactoryUtils.beansOfTypeIncludingAncestors(...)
that grabs all the beans of some given type. This is used for example by the Spring Web MVC DispatcherServlet (among many other places) to discover beans by type, such as HandlerMappings, HandlerAdapters, HandlerExceptionResolvers and so forth. Contrast this with cases where the bean must have a specific well-known name/ID to be found, such as the LocaleResolver (ID must be "localeResolver" or it won't be found) and ThemeResolver (ID must be "themeResolver" or it won't be found).
Beans defined without name and ID can be accessed with a generated ID (full package name and class name), for example:
bean defined as
<bean class="pl.finsys.initOrder.TestBeanImpl">
can be accessed by
TestBean bean = (TestBean) ctx.getBean("pl.finsys.initOrder.TestBeanImpl");
//Bean Cfg File without Bean id
<bean class="com.ds.DemoBean">
<property name="msg" value="Hello"/>
</bean>
//We can Access
Object obj=factory.getBean("com.ds.DemoBe
its not a mandatory to provide java Bean Id..If we are not providing Bean Id,our Container Provides the Default Been Id.Default Bean Id look like as
"(Package Name).(Bean Class Name)#N"where N=0,1,2,......etc.
It seems there is a subtle difference between unnamed and named bean behaviour. If you have an XML config file imported twice, each named bean will be created only once, but an unnamed bean will be created as many times as its definition is included. When trying to autowire such a bean by type, it leads to errors like this:
No qualifying bean of type [your.class.Name] is defined: expected single matching bean but found 4