I am learning Spring using this tutorial. I am unable to get my head around the following excerpt from it:
Spring enables developers to develop enterprise-class applications using POJOs. The benefit of using only POJOs is that you do not need an EJB container product such as an application server but you have the option of using only a robust servlet container such as Tomcat or some commercial product.
In the good old days when application servers only supported EJB 2 it was a nightmare to develop services using EJBs. Each service (e.g. a stateless session bean) required a bunch of interfaces and strange additional methods to work properly (home interface, remote interface, deployment descriptors etc).
In order to run EJBs you need an application server such as Jboss or Glassfish. In order to run servlets you simply need a servlet container such as Tomcat or Jetty which is way more lightweight than an application server.
Spring offers a way of creating simple services as plain POJOs (that can be exposed via servlets). Therefore, to be able to develop services as a POJO was simply a dream come true. Services did not need all the constraining dependencies to the EJB-interfaces and they could be deployed in a lightweight servlet container.
Then came EJB3 which greatly improved life for the Java EE developer. EJBs no longer needed the dependencies for home- and remote-interfaces (at least not via inheritence). A modern EJB 3 service is very similar to a POJO-based service. The main difference is that EJBs still require an application server to be deployed.
Spring Guru Rod Johnson released the book J2EE Development without EJBs which greatly explains how to replace your old J2EE components (such as EJBs) with more lightweight Spring Pojos - good reading!
Read below link which may help you understand meaning of benefit of using POJO :
http://www.javaexperience.com/difference-between-pojo-javabean-ejb/
I have examples of both working individually, now trying to merge so that I have both capabilities / entry points.
Not surpised it is confused about the application contexts to load.
I want to know if this is even possible and if so any examples?
I know it is doable with spring boot however not wanting to move to that just yet.
I am attempting the impossible?
"Spring MVC (with embedded Jetty)" usually means an HTTP endpoint running in its own JVM (I suppose you have a main method that starts Jetty). Once you have that started, you can integrate it as any other HTTP endpoint in Spring Integration.
If you want them both to run in the same JVM, that probably means you don't want to make use of HTTP as you can invoke methods directly on your #Controllers or #Services.
Or perhaps I'm missing something here... ?
I'd go for Spring Boot. Version 1.1.6 was just released. I'm currently also migrating an "old" SI application to be based upon Spring Boot. I suggest you give http://start.spring.io a try. Migration should not be too difficult.
I want to use spring's dependency injection for now(other core functionalites later maybe) in tomcat application.
I want to set up spring 2.5.5 in tomcat7, But don't have clarity on how to do this.
Specifically I am confused because I don't know whether to use Spring MVC or use just spring in tomcat.
I found this question helpful: Tomcat with Spring, But still didn't get the whole scenario on how to setup tomcat with spring.
You can do either, using just core spring with tomcat is fine. MVC provides additional functionality.
Take a look at the spring source examples on github, and read their docs.
(BTW I thouroughy spring-MVC component - it really saves time developing webapps)
I'm currently developing a small EJB application running on IBM Websphere Application Server 7 (Java EE 5). The app mainly consists of one MDB listening for incoming MQ messages which are transformed and stored in a DB. Currently I'm using a lot of Singleton/Factories to share configurations, mappings, datasource lookups etc. But this actually leads to some very hard to test code. The solution might be using a (simple) DI framework like guice/spring to inject the different instances. The question is: Where to place the initialization/ setup code? Where is the main entry point of the application? How can I inject instances into the MDBs?
it might be worth looking at backing off from using Guice, and trying to work with the injection mechanisms already available with Java EE 5.
Regarding finding a suitable "startup point", unfortunately the EJB specification does not define a way where you can have a bean run at startup. However, the web profile of the EE spec does have one -- you can add a WAR to your application, and set a servlet listener component:
http://java.sun.com/javaee/5/docs/api/javax/servlet/ServletContextListener.html
You can set this to start whenever the application is loaded and started by the container (WebSphere). Watch out for classloader issues though.
Using Spring, you can do it via EJB3 interceptors, see http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.0.x/spring-framework-reference/html/ejb.html#ejb-implementation-ejb3
Useful info on caveats are in the javadoc, make sure you read it: http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.0.x/api/org/springframework/ejb/interceptor/SpringBeanAutowiringInterceptor.html
On the Tomcat FAQ it says: "Tomcat is not an EJB server. Tomcat is not a full J2EE server."
But if I:
use Spring to supply an application context
annotate my entities with JPA
annotations (and use Hibernate as a
JPA provider)
configure C3P0 as a connection pooling data
source
annotate my service methods
with #Transactional (and use Atomikos
as JTA provider)
Use JAXB for marshalling and unmarshalling
and possibly add my own JNDI capability
then don't I effectively have a Java EE application server? And then aren't my beans EJBs? Or is there some other defining characteristic?
What is it that a Java EE compliant app server gives you that you can't easily/readily get from Tomcat with some 3rd party subsystems?
EJBs are JavaEE components that conform to the javax.ejb API.
JavaEE is a collection of APIs, you don't need to use all of them.
Tomcat is a "partial" JavaEE server, in that it only implements some of the JavaEE APIs, such as Servlets and JNDI. It doesn't implement e.g. EJB and JMS, so it's not a full JavaEE implementation.
If you added some additional bits and pieces (e.g. OpenEJB, HornetQ), you'd add the missing parts, and you'd end up with a full JavaEE server. But out of the box, Tomcat isn't that, and doesn't try to be.
But if I add (...) then don't I effectively have a Java EE application server? And then aren't my beans EJBs? Or is there some other defining characteristic?
No, you don't have a Java EE application server, a full-fledged Java EE application server is more than Tomcat + Spring + a standalone Transaction Manager. And even if you add a JMS provider and an EJB container, you still won't have a Java EE server. The glue between all parts is IMO important and is part of the added value of a Java EE container.
Regarding EJBs, the EJB specification is much more than JPA and specifices also Session Beans and Message Driven Beans (actually, I don't really consider JPA Entities as EJBs even if JPA is part of the EJB 3.0 specification in Java EE 5 for historical reasons - which is not true anymore in Java EE 6, JPA 2.0 and EJB 3.1 are separate specifications).
I should also mention that a Spring bean annotated with #Transactional is not equivalent to a Session Bean. A Java EE container can do more things with Session Beans (see below). You may not need them though but still, they are not strictly equivalent.
Last thing, Java EE containers implement a standard, the Spring container does not, it is proprietary.
What is it that a Java EE compliant app server gives you that you can't easily/readily get from Tomcat with some 3rd party subsystems?
As I said, I think that the "glue" is a part of the added value and highly contributes to the robustness of the whole. Then, ewernli's answer underlined very well what is difficult to achieve. I'd just add:
Clustering and Fail-over (to achieve fault-tolerance)
Administration facilities
Yes, a good Java EE server will do pretty neat things to improve fault tolerance (clustering of connection pools, JNDI tree, JMS destinations, automatic retry with idempotent beans, smart EJB clients, transaction recovery, migration of services, etc). For "mission critical" applications - the vast majority are not - this is important. And in such cases, libraries on top of the Servlet API are IMO not a replacement.
1) You're confusing JPA entities with EJBs. While JPA belongs to the EJB3 specification, it was always meant to be a standalone technology.
2) EJBs are: stateless beans, stateful beans and message driven beans. While each of these functionalities can easily be achieved using spring, spring just does not use this terminology. In Spring, you don't have POJO + "magic" as in EJBs, in Spring it's POJO + your own configuration (which sometimes feels like magic, too). The main difference is that spring does more and the application server does less, which is why a spring app is happy with a tomcat while an ejb3 app needs a 'real' application server.
In my opinion, 90% of applications can be deployed using spring + tomcat, ejb3 is rarely needed.
Indeed, if you put enough effort you can almost turn Tomcat/Spring into a full-fledged heavyweight application server :) You could even embed a portable EJB3 container...
What is it that a Java EE compliant app
server gives you that you can't
easily/readily get from Tomcat with
some 3rd party subsystems?
There are still a few features that are hard to get with 3rd party modules:
stateful session beans (SFSB)
extended persistence context
application client container / java web start
clustering depending on the app. server
CORBA interoperability
JCA integration ~
remoting ~
container-managed transactions ~
decent management of distributed transactions (e.g. recover heuristic tx)
Entries with ~ are also supported by Spring, but not so trivially, at least to my best knowledge.
A few more details in this answer: EJB vs Spring
Outside of the strict definition of what is and isn't an EJB, you're adding a lot of stuff to Tomcat. Even if what you have is an EJB server, it's not really plain Tomcat anymore.
The FAQ is correct: Tomcat is not an EJB server. However, it can be that or many other things if you pile on enough extra libraries and code.
An EJB implementation would be a bean written and packaged to run on any compliant EJB server. If you do what you describe, it may work, but it won't be portable to another vendor's application server.
So EJB is a standard that adheres to a specific specification and is therefore portable.
In practice many EJB's are not fully compliant or application server neutral. However, in the main they are, so the small incompatibilities would be much easier to fix if you changed application server vendors than attempting to move the architecture you described to a GlassFish, JBoss or Weblogic server.
EDIT: In response to your comment you would not have an EJB appropriately annotated and/or configured via XML in such a way that code that accessed it in EJB compliant ways would be able to use it without changes.
There are two angles to your comment. One is what functionality would you lose deploying on a JBoss or any of the others instead of Tomcat? Likely nothing, if you brought along all of the frameworks you relied on. However, if you wanted to move your code to Weblogic, for example, to use some of its features, then your code would need some likely significant changes to keep up.
I am not saying that you cannot replicate all EJB functionality (certainly the subset you care about) via other means, just that it is not the spec, and therefore not implementation independent.
then don't I effectively have a Java EE
application server? And then aren't my
beans EJB's? Or is there some other
defining characteristic?
Quick answer EJBs actually have to follow a Java EE specification. Tomcat is a Java EE container not an app server.
What is it that a Java EE compliant app
server gives you that you can't
easily/readily get from Tomcat with
some 3rd party subsystems?
Quick answer to your second question. In your case most likely nothing.
EJBs tend to be really heavy objects and people ended up using them to solve problems when they were essentially overkill. Frameworks like Spring were created to solve those problems without using EJBs. I think the first book where Spring was introduced was even called "J2EE development without EJB."