Given I have a Spring bean configured as
#Service("myService")
public class DefaultService extends MyService {
}
and a class using this bean
public class Consumer {
#Autowired
#Qualifier("myService")
private MyService service;
...
}
I now want my project, that includes the preceding classes, to have Consumer another implementation of MyService being injected. Therefore I would like to overwrite the bean myService
#Service("myService")
public class SpecializedService implements MyService {
}
resulting in Consumer carrying now an instance of SpecializedService instead of DefaultService. By definition I cannot have two beans with the same name in the Spring container. How can I tell spring, that the definition of the new service shall overwrite the older one? I don't want to modify the Consumer class.
Either define the service bean explicitly
<bean id="myService" class="x.y.z.SpecializedService" />
or component-scan it.
In either event, in your application context, avoid explicitly defining DefaultService and avoid component-scanning it.
Exclude it from component-scan by using a filter
<component-scan base-package="your-package">
<exclude-filter type="regex" expression="DefaultService" />
</component-scan>
Not sure if there is a way to do it with only annotations (other than removing the #Service annotation from DefaultService).
Annotation based wiring happens before the XML based configuration, that means beans defined in XML will
overwrite those wiring done by Annotations.
So defining it explicitely in XML, like Willie has said will do the work
<bean id="myService" class="x.y.z.SpecializedService" />
Spring recommends using XML for service and repository beans and annotation for MVC beans. It also recommends #Autowired without component scanning. But Annotation are in general encouraged, although it merges code and configuration together (against seperation of concerns).
Second thing is to use #Qualifiers("id of declared bean") where it is being passed.
I know , its late . Still posting it.
You should have different names for different implementations of MyService.
For instance
#Service("mySpecializedService")
public class SpecializedService implements MyService {
}
#Service("myService")
public class DefaultService extends MyService {
}
While autowiring them ( say in Controller) , you may use #Qualifier to inject desired implementation as mentioned below.
To get default implementation
#Autowired
#Qualifier("myService")
MyService myService;
To get specialized implementation
#Autowired
#Qualifier("mySpecializedService")
MyService myService;
Related
Is there any difference between using #Qualifier("beanName") and #Component("beanName") ?
If not, is there a preferred approach?
Generally, you use #Component("beanName") on the component, You use #Qualifier("beanName") on a class you are autowiring. Ex
#Component("myComponent1")
public class MyComponent1 implements MyComponent {
....
}
#Component("myComponent2")
public class MyComponent2 implements MyComponent {
....
}
#Service
public class SomeService implements MyService {
#Qualifier("myComponent1")
private MyComponent myComponent;
...
}
If there is more than one implementation of a bean/component, spring won't know which bean to select, so you need to use a the qualifier to specify which one is correct.
Additionally, you can use #Primary on one of the components, so it is always selected by default.
They are totally two different things , sound like you are compare apple and orange to me.
#Component is used to declare a class as a Spring bean which you cannot do it with #Qualifier.
#Qualifier is intended to help Spring to determine which bean to inject if there are more than 1 eligible bean for that injection. It is normally used with #Autowired which add more constraint on the injection point such that there are only one bean can be injected in it.
lets say I have code like this:
#Repository
public class Foo{
}
#Service
public class Boo{
#Autowired
private Foo foo;
}
so now what here are we calling bean? Bean is the object of Foo type of refrence "foo" BUT are Boo class annotated as Service and Foo as Repository ALSO beans? Ihve been using spring for a while now but this basic question makes me feel bad for not knowing...
In the context of Spring, A bean is a spring managed object. Here spring managed means an object created, initialised, managed, destroyed by Spring IoC container.
Whenever we mark a class with #Component, Spring IOC container will create object for your class and manage it, Whenever we can simply get it from ApplicationContext, or access it using #Autowired/#Resource/#Inject annotations
We can also use #Controller, #Repository, #Service, #ControllerAdvice, #Configuration,#Aspect in place of #Component to tell more specifically that our class is a service or a repository or an aspect etc.
We can also use #Bean annotation to create a bean from method return value
#Configuration
public class SolrConfig {
#Value("${spring.data.solr.host}") String solrUrl;
#Bean
public SolrServer solrServer() {
return new HttpSolrServer(solrUrl);
}
#Bean(name = "solrTemplate")
public SolrTemplate solrTemplate() {
return new SolrTemplate(new HttpSolrServer(solrUrl), RULE_ENGINE_CORE);
}
}
All of your application components (#Component, #Service, #Repository, #Controller etc.) will be automatically registered as Spring Beans
http://docs.spring.io/autorepo/docs/spring-boot/current/reference/html/using-boot-spring-beans-and-dependency-injection.html
Defining Beans can be thought of as replacing the keyword new.
Further information can be found here which might be helpful for understanding Beans in Spring.
#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
Can someone tell how to get the bean of service layer in spring MVC. One way to get the bean of service layer is by using #Service annotation but how to do that, I don't know.
Controller:
#Controller
public class ConfigureApplicationController {
#RequestMapping(value="/ConfigureApplication.html", method=RequestMethod.GET)
public ModelAndView getListOfAllConfigureApplication(){
AppConfigureServiceImpl getService=new AppConfigureServiceImpl();
ArrayList<ConfigureApplication> results =getService.getListOfAllAppConfigure();
ModelAndView model=new ModelAndView("ConfigureApplication");
model.addObject("results",results);
return model;
}
and serviceImpl is:
#Service("appConfigureServiceImpl")
public class AppConfigureServiceImpl implements AppConfigureService {
public ArrayList<ConfigureApplication> getListOfAllAppConfigure(){
#SuppressWarnings("resource")
ApplicationContext ctx=new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("spring-dispatcher-servlet.xml");
AppConfigureDAOImpl getAll=ctx.getBean("appConfigureDAOImpl", AppConfigureDAOImpl.class);
ArrayList<ConfigureApplication> results =getAll.getList();
return results;
}
In this i have made the object of AppConfigureServiceImpl (in service layer)then i invoke the method but by doing so i am not using dependency injection in spring. I know i can do this using #Service annotation but i don';t know the syntax. can someone help me to solve this problem.
put a plain #Service annotation over your AppConfigureServiceImpl (you don't have to specify the "appConfigureServiceImpl" like you did).
Then have the service instance injected automatically in your controller by adding the following inside ConfigureApplicationController class:
#Autowired
AppConfigureService appConfigureService;
Now you can just call it like this: appConfigureService.getListOfAllAppConfigure();
Note that for the injection to happen, you need to make sure that you have set componentScan property in your configuration file to scan the packages that contain the classes to be injected. In your case, the package that contains AppConfigureServiceImpl.
<context:component-scan base-package="com.my.servicepackage" />
Note also that you should do the same with your dao instead of creating a new application context and getting it from the there. I.e. add a
#Autowired
AppConfigureDAO appConfigureDAO;
property inside your AppConfigureServiceImpl and use that.
I'm developing an application using Spring. I need to use the #Service annotation. I have ServiceI and ServiceImpl such that ServiceImpl implements ServiceI. I'm confused here as to where should I keep the #Service annotation.
Should I annotate the interface or the implementation with #Service? What are the differences between these two approaches?
I never put #Component (or #Service, ...) at an interface, because this make the interface useless. Let me explain why.
claim 1: If you have an interface then you want to use that interface for the injection point type.
claim 2: The purpose of an interface is that it define a contract that can been implemented by several implementations. On the other side you have your injection point (#Autowired). Having just one interface and only one class that implement it, is (IMHO) useless, and violates YAGNI.
fact: When you put:
#Component (or #Service, ...) at an interface,
have multiple classes that implements it,
at least two classes become Spring Beans, and
have an injection point that use the interface for type based injection,
then you will get and NoUniqueBeanDefinitionException
(or you have a very special configurations setup, with Environment, Profiles or Qualifiers ...)
Conclusion: If you use #Component (or #Service, ...) at an interface then you must violate at least one of the two clains. Therefore I think it is not useful (except some rare scenarios) to put #Component at interface level.
Spring-Data-JPA Repository interfaces are something complete different
Basically annotations like #Service, #Repository, #Component, etc. they all serve the same purpose:
auto-detection when using annotation-based configuration and classpath
scanning.
From my experience I am always using #Service annotation on the interfaces or abstract classes and annotations like #Component and #Repository for their implementation. #Component annotation I am using on those classes which serves basic purposes, simple Spring beans, nothing more. #Repository annotation I am using in the DAO layer, for e.g. if I have to communicate to the database, have some transactions, etc.
So I would suggest to annotate your interface with the #Service and other layers depending on the functionality.
I used #Component, #Service, #Controller and #Repository annotations only on the implementation classes and not on the interface. But #Autowired annotation with Interfaces still worked for me. If there's only one implementation of your interface Spring component scan automatically finds it with just #Autowired annotation. In case you have multiple implementations, you will need to use the #Qualifier annotation along with #Autowired to inject the correct implementation at the injection point.
1. #Service on Interfaces
#Service
public interface AuthenticationService {
boolean authenticate(String username, String password);
}
Normally, that's fine, but there's a drawback. By putting Spring's #Service on interfaces, we create an extra dependency and couple our interfaces with an outside library.
Next, to test the autodetection of our new service beans, let's create an implementation of our AuthenticationService:
public class InMemoryAuthenticationService implements AuthenticationService {
#Override
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
//...
}
}
We should pay attention that our new implementation, InMemoryAuthenticationService, doesn't have the #Service annotation on it. We left #Service only on the interface, AuthenticationService.
So, let's run our Spring context with the help of a basic Spring Boot setup:
#SpringBootApplication
public class AuthApplication {
#Autowired
private AuthenticationService authService;
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(AuthApplication.class, args);
}
}
When we run our app, we may get the infamous NoSuchBeanDefinitionException, and the Spring context fails to start.
Therefore, placing #Service on interfaces isn't enough for the auto-detection of Spring components.
2. #Service on Abstract Classes
Using the #Service annotation on abstract classes isn't common.
We'll start by defining an abstract class from scratch and putting the #Service annotation on it:
#Service
public abstract class AbstractAuthenticationService {
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
return false;
}
}
Next, we extend AbstractAuthenticationService to create a concrete implementation without annotating it:
public class LdapAuthenticationService extends AbstractAuthenticationService {
#Override
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
//...
}
}
Accordingly, we also update our AuthApplication, to inject the new service class:
#SpringBootApplication
public class AuthApplication {
#Autowired
private AbstractAuthenticationService authService;
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(AuthApplication.class, args);
}
}
After we run our AuthApplication, the Spring context doesn't start. It ends up with the same NoSuchBeanDefinitionException exception again.
So, using #Service annotation on abstract classes doesn't have any effect in Spring.
3. #Service on Concrete Classes
Contrary to what we've seen above, it's quite a common practice to annotate the implementation classes instead of abstract classes or interfaces.
In this way, our goal is mostly to tell Spring this class is going to be a #Component and mark it with a special stereotype, which is #Service in our case.
Therefore, Spring will autodetect those classes from the classpath and automatically define them as managed beans.
So, let's put #Service on our concrete service classes this time around. We'll have one class that implements our interface and a second that extends the abstract class that we defined previously:
#Service
public class InMemoryAuthenticationService implements AuthenticationService {
#Override
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
//...
}
}
#Service
public class LdapAuthenticationService extends AbstractAuthenticationService {
#Override
public boolean authenticate(String username, String password) {
//...
}
}
We should take notice here that our AbstractAuthenticationService doesn't implement the AuthenticationService here. Hence, we can test them independently.
Finally, we add both of our service classes into the AuthApplication and give it a try:
#SpringBootApplication
public class AuthApplication {
#Autowired
private AuthenticationService inMemoryAuthService;
#Autowired
private AbstractAuthenticationService ldapAuthService;
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(AuthApplication.class, args);
}
}
Our final test gives us a successful result, and the Spring context boots up with no exceptions. Both of the services are automatically registered as beans.
You might have a look at this page for the other explanations.
Pros of putting annotation on #Service is that it gives a hint that it is a service. I don't know if any implementing class will by default inherit this annoation.
Con side is that you are coupling your interface with a specific framework i.e. Spring, by using spring specific annotation.
As interfaces are supposed to be decoupled from implementation, I would not suggest using any framework specific Annotations or object part of your interface.
I would put #Service on your class but put the name of the interface as a parameter to the annotation e.g.
interface ServiceOne {}
#Service("ServiceOne")
class ServiceOneImpl implements ServiceOne{}
By doing that you get all the benefits and can still inject the interface but get the class
#Autowired
private ServiceOne serviceOne;
So your interface is not tied to spring framework and you can change the class at any time and not have to update all your injection points.
So if I wanted to change the implementation class I could just annotate the new class and remove from the first but that's all that is required to be changed. If you inject the class you could have a lot of work when ever you want to change the impl class.
One benefit of spring is to easily switch Service (or other) implementation.
For this, you need to annotate on the interface and declare variable like this :
#Autowired
private MyInterface myVariable;
and not :
#Autowired
private MyClassImplementationWhichImplementsMyInterface myVariable;
Like the first case, you can activate which implementation to inject from the moment it is unique (only one class implements the interface).
In the second case, you need to refactor all your code (the new class implementation has another name).
As a consequence, the annotation needs to be on the interface as much as possible. Furthermore, JDK proxies are well suited for this : they are created and instantiated at application startup because runtime type is known by advance, contrary to CGlib proxies.
interface MyService {}
#Service
class MyServiceImpl implements MyService{}
#Autowired
private MyService myService;
My testing result on spring-boot 2.7.4 is:
Adding #Service ONLY to interface doesn't create spring bean named MyService. It will error on Autowired.
#Service will need to be added to implementation class to create bean com.*.service.impl.MyServiceImpl $$EnhancerBySpringCGLIB$$9140ae19 Spring will wire it to private MyService myService;
There are 5 annotations which could be used for making spring beans. List in below of answers.
Do you really need an interface? If you are going to have one implementation for each service interface, just avoid it, use only class. Of course, if you don't have RMI or when interface proxy is required.
#Repository - use for injecting your dao layer classes.
#Service - use for injecting your service layer classes. In service layer also you might need to use #Transactional annotation for db transaction management.
#Controller - use for your frontend layer controllers, such as JSF managed beans injecting as spring beans.
#RestController - use for spring rest controllers, this would help you to avoid every time to put #ResponseBody and #RequestBody annotations in your rest methods.
#Component - use it in any other case when you need to Inject spring bean which is not controller, service, or dao class
To put it simply:
#Service is a Stereotype annotation for the service layer.
#Repository is a Stereotype annotation for the persistence layer.
#Component is a generic stereotype annotation used to tell Spring to create an instance of the object in the Application Context. It's possible to
define any name for the instance, the default is the class name as camel case.