Get caller class in Java CDI Interceptor - java

I'm trying to implement a cache that holds results from a specific business method call and then refreshes itself every 30 minutes.
I was able to accomplish that by using a singleton EJB using a scheduled method; however, every class that calls that business method now has to instead call the method from the singleton that exposes the cached results.
I want to avoid this behaviour and keep the code from these classes as is, so I thought of using an interceptor that would intercept every call to that particular business method and return instead the results from the cache singleton.
However, this solution has the application stalling since the singleton calls the intercepted business method itself to cache its results, so the interceptor intercepts the call (pardon the repetition) and tries to return the result of the singleton method that exposes the cached values, while the singleton is still waiting for the call to the business method to proceed.
The most obvious solution would be to get the method caller from the interceptor, and check if its
class corresponds to the singleton's; if so, proceed with the call, otherwise return the cached results from the singleton. However, it appears that the InvocationContext object used by the interceptor doesn't expose any methods to access information about the intercepted method's caller. Is there any other way to access the caller's class, or any workaround to this issue?
Here's my singleton class:
#Singleton
#Startup
public class TopAlbumsHolder {
private List<Album> topAlbums;
#Inject
private DataAgent dataAgent;
#PostConstruct
#Schedule(hour = "*", minute = "*/30", persistent = false)
private void populateCache() {
this.topAlbums = this.dataAgent.getTopAlbums();
}
#Lock(LockType.READ)
public List<Album> getTopAlbums() {
return this.topAlbums;
}
}
And here's my interceptor:
#Interceptor
#Cacheable(type = "topAlbums")
public class TopAlbumsInterceptor {
#Inject
private TopAlbumsHolder topAlbumsHolder;
#AroundInvoke
public Object interceptTopAlbumsCall(InvocationContext invocationContext) throws Exception {
// if the caller's class equals that of the cache singleton, then return invocationContext.proceed();
// otherwise:
return this.topAlbumsHolder.getTopAlbums();
}
}
Note that the #Cacheable annotation is a custom interceptor binding, not javax.persistence.Cacheable.
EDIT: I modified the interceptor method that way:
#AroundInvoke
public Object interceptTopAlbumsCall(InvocationContext invocationContext) throws Exception {
for (StackTraceElement stackTraceElement : Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace())
if (TopAlbumsHolder.class.getName().equals(stackTraceElement.getClassName()))
return invocationContext.proceed();
return this.topAlbumsHolder.getTopAlbums();
}
But I doubt that's the cleanest solution, and I don't know if it's portable.
EDIT 2: In case it is not clear enough, I need to access information about the invoker class of the intercepted method, not the invoked class that has its method intercepted; that's why I'm iterating over the stack trace to access the invoker's class, but I reckon this is not an elegant solution, even though it works.

For what you need to do, I'd say use either interceptor or decorator.
Your interceptor is however wrong. Firtly you are missing the basic part, which is a call to InvocationContext.proceed() that forwards the call to next-in-line interceptor (if there is any) or the method call itself. Secondly, the injection point you placed there is very specific and would only help you if you intercept this very type of bean. Typically, an around invoke interceptor method looks like this:
#AroundInvoke
Object intercept(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception {
// do something before the invocation of the intercepted method
return ctx.proceed(); // this invoked next interceptor and ultimately the intercepted method
// do something after the invocation of the intercepted method
}
Furthermore, if you want metadata information about what bean was intercepted, every interceptor can inject a special built-in bean just for that. From the metadata, you can gather information on what bean you're currently intercepting. Here is how you get that metadata:
#Inject
#Intercepted
private Bean<?> bean;
Note that interceptors are unaware of what type they intercept, it can be anything and hence you usually need to operate on plain Object.
Should you need something more specific, CDI offers a Decorator pattern which in basically a type-aware interceptor. It has a special injection point (a delegate) that gives you direct access to the decorated bean. It might possibly fit your scenario even better, take a look at this part of CDI specification explaining Decorators.

There is a misunderstanding.
You don't inject the Object which gets intercepted into the interceptor, but use the invocationContext.
You just need to call invocationContext.proceed() then there is no recursion.
The result of proceed() you can cache.

Iterate over the stack trace to check on TopAlbumsHolder exists isn't a good way.
To escape invoking the interceptor during calling the getTopAlbums() from DataAgent class you can specify the scheduler direct in the DataAgent which gathers the data and push it into TopAlbumsHolder. You can do it another way, but your main point direct invoking the getTopAlbums() within the DataAgent bean without participating proxy (in this case, the interceptor won't apply).
P.S. Pay attention that cached data should be immutable (both the collection and its objects).

Related

Strange behavior calling package-private method of proxied object in Jersey 2

Following class
public class MaskHolder {
private Mask mask;
private UUID id = UUID.randomUUID()
void store() {
System.out.println(id);
}
public void get() {
System.out.println(id);
}
}
is bound to HK2 like this
bind(MaskHolder.class).to(MaskHolder.class)
.proxy(true).proxyForSameScope(false).in(RequestScoped.class);
Proxy injected to bean with #Context behaves as expected for public method but executes package-private method as well. The problem is package-private method does not trigger MethodInterceptor so it actually does not reach the same instance get() does.
The question is what is this "default" instance to which proxy forwards package-private method call. Calling get() method I reach different instance on different requests but calling store method ends up in the same instance every time so it behaves like singleton.
There was one more thing I didn't mention - proxy behaving like singleton was injected into JacksonJsonProvider subclass. So as far as I understand this subclass of JacksonJsonProvider is created only once in Jersey so instance of proxy injected into it does not change between requests.
Proxy is basically an artificial subclass of MaskHolder with interceptor on public methods but it basically is MaskHolder with it's UUID field. So if interceptor does not provide RequestScope bean we access "parent" MaskHolder. And because the proxy instance is injected only once to JacksonJsonProvider it is the same across requests.
Injecting MaskHolder into resource results in different proxy instance (different UUID) across requests.

If Spring can successfully intercept intra class function calls in a #Configuration class, why does it not support it in a regular bean?

I have recently noticed that Spring successfully intercepts intra class function calls in a #Configuration class but not in a regular bean.
A call like this
#Repository
public class CustomerDAO {
#Transactional(value=TxType.REQUIRED)
public void saveCustomer() {
// some DB stuff here...
saveCustomer2();
}
#Transactional(value=TxType.REQUIRES_NEW)
public void saveCustomer2() {
// more DB stuff here
}
}
fails to start a new transaction because while the code of saveCustomer() executes in the CustomerDAO proxy, the code of saveCustomer2() gets executed in the unwrapped CustomerDAO class, as I can see by looking at 'this' in the debugger, and so Spring has no chance to intercept the call to saveCustomer2.
However, in the following example, when transactionManager() calls createDataSource() it is correctly intercepted and calls createDataSource() of the proxy, not of the unwrapped class, as evidenced by looking at 'this' in the debugger.
#Configuration
public class PersistenceJPAConfig {
#Bean
public DriverManagerDataSource createDataSource() {
DriverManagerDataSource dataSource = new DriverManagerDataSource();
//dataSource.set ... DB stuff here
return dataSource;
}
#Bean
public PlatformTransactionManager transactionManager( ){
DataSourceTransactionManager transactionManager = new DataSourceTransactionManager(createDataSource());
return transactionManager;
}
}
So my question is, why can Spring correctly intercept the intra class function calls in the second example, but not in the first. Is it using different types of dynamic proxies?
Edit:
From the answers here and other sources I now understand the following:
#Transactional is implemented using Spring AOP, where the proxy pattern is carried out by wrapping/composition of the user class. The AOP proxy is generic enough so that many Aspects can be chained together, and may be a CGLib proxy or a Java Dynamic Proxy.
In the #Configuration class, Spring also uses CGLib to create an enhanced class which inherits from the user #Configuration class, and overrides the user's #Bean functions with ones that do some extra work before calling the user's/super function such as check if this is the first invocation of the function or not. Is this class a proxy? It depends on the definition. You may say that it is a proxy which uses inheritance from the real object instead of wrapping it using composition.
To sum up, from the answers given here I understand these are two entirely different mechanisms. Why these design choices were made is another, open question.
Is it using different types of dynamic proxies?
Almost exactly
Let's figure out what's the difference between #Configuration classes and AOP proxies answering the following questions:
Why self-invoked #Transactional method has no transactional semantics even though Spring is capable of intercepting self-invoked methods?
How #Configuration and AOP are related?
Why self-invoked #Transactional method has no transactional semantics?
Short answer:
This is how AOP made.
Long answer:
Declarative transaction management relies on AOP (for the majority of Spring applications on Spring AOP)
The Spring Framework’s declarative transaction management is made possible with Spring aspect-oriented programming (AOP)
It is proxy-based (§5.8.1. Understanding AOP Proxies)
Spring AOP is proxy-based.
From the same paragraph SimplePojo.java:
public class SimplePojo implements Pojo {
public void foo() {
// this next method invocation is a direct call on the 'this' reference
this.bar();
}
public void bar() {
// some logic...
}
}
And a snippet proxying it:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ProxyFactory factory = new ProxyFactory(new SimplePojo());
factory.addInterface(Pojo.class);
factory.addAdvice(new RetryAdvice());
Pojo pojo = (Pojo) factory.getProxy();
// this is a method call on the proxy!
pojo.foo();
}
}
The key thing to understand here is that the client code inside the main(..) method of the Main class has a reference to the proxy.
This means that method calls on that object reference are calls on the proxy.
As a result, the proxy can delegate to all of the interceptors (advice) that are relevant to that particular method call.
However, once the call has finally reached the target object (the SimplePojo, reference in this case), any method calls that it may make on itself, such as this.bar() or this.foo(), are going to be invoked against the this reference, and not the proxy.
This has important implications. It means that self-invocation is not going to result in the advice associated with a method invocation getting a chance to execute.
(Key parts are emphasized.)
You may think that aop works as follows:
Imagine we have a Foo class which we want to proxy:
Foo.java:
public class Foo {
public int getInt() {
return 42;
}
}
There is nothing special. Just getInt method returning 42
An interceptor:
Interceptor.java:
public interface Interceptor {
Object invoke(InterceptingFoo interceptingFoo);
}
LogInterceptor.java (for demonstration):
public class LogInterceptor implements Interceptor {
#Override
public Object invoke(InterceptingFoo interceptingFoo) {
System.out.println("log. before");
try {
return interceptingFoo.getInt();
} finally {
System.out.println("log. after");
}
}
}
InvokeTargetInterceptor.java:
public class InvokeTargetInterceptor implements Interceptor {
#Override
public Object invoke(InterceptingFoo interceptingFoo) {
try {
System.out.println("Invoking target");
Object targetRetVal = interceptingFoo.method.invoke(interceptingFoo.target);
System.out.println("Target returned " + targetRetVal);
return targetRetVal;
} catch (Throwable t) {
throw new RuntimeException(t);
} finally {
System.out.println("Invoked target");
}
}
}
Finally InterceptingFoo.java:
public class InterceptingFoo extends Foo {
public Foo target;
public List<Interceptor> interceptors = new ArrayList<>();
public int index = 0;
public Method method;
#Override
public int getInt() {
try {
Interceptor interceptor = interceptors.get(index++);
return (Integer) interceptor.invoke(this);
} finally {
index--;
}
}
}
Wiring everything together:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Throwable {
Foo target = new Foo();
InterceptingFoo interceptingFoo = new InterceptingFoo();
interceptingFoo.method = Foo.class.getDeclaredMethod("getInt");
interceptingFoo.target = target;
interceptingFoo.interceptors.add(new LogInterceptor());
interceptingFoo.interceptors.add(new InvokeTargetInterceptor());
interceptingFoo.getInt();
interceptingFoo.getInt();
}
Will print:
log. before
Invoking target
Target returned 42
Invoked target
log. after
log. before
Invoking target
Target returned 42
Invoked target
log. after
Now let's take a look at ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
Here is a part of its proceed method:
Object interceptorOrInterceptionAdvice = this.interceptorsAndDynamicMethodMatchers.get(++this.currentInterceptorIndex);
++this.currentInterceptorIndex should look familiar now
Here is the target
And there are interceptors
the method
the index
You may try introducing several aspects into your application and see the stack growing at the proceed method when advised method is invoked
Finally everything ends up at MethodProxy.
From its invoke method javadoc:
Invoke the original method, on a different object of the same type.
And as I mentioned previously documentation:
once the call has finally reached the target object any method calls that it may make on itself are going to be invoked against the this reference, and not the proxy
I hope now, more or less, it's clear why.
How #Configuration and AOP are related?
The answer is they are not related.
So Spring here is free to do whatever it wants. Here it is not tied to the proxy AOP semantics.
It enhances such classes using ConfigurationClassEnhancer.
Take a look at:
CALLBACKS
BeanMethodInterceptor
BeanFactoryAwareMethodInterceptor
Returning to the question
If Spring can successfully intercept intra class function calls in a #Configuration class, why does it not support it in a regular bean?
I hope from technical point of view it is clear why.
Now my thoughts from non-technical side:
I think it is not done because Spring AOP is here long enough...
Since Spring Framework 5 the Spring WebFlux framework has been introduced.
Currently Spring Team is working hard towards enhancing reactive programming model
See some notable recent blog posts:
Reactive Transactions with Spring
Spring Data R2DBC 1.0 M2 and Spring Boot starter released
Going Reactive with Spring, Coroutines and Kotlin Flow
More and more features towards less-proxying approach of building Spring applications are introduced. (see this commit for example)
So I think that even though it might be possible to do what you've described it is far from Spring Team's #1 priority for now
Because AOP proxies and #Configuration class serve a different purpose, and are implemented in a significantly different ways (even though both involve using proxies).
Basically, AOP uses composition while #Configuration uses inheritance.
AOP proxies
The way these work is basically that they create proxies that do the relevant advice logic before/after delegating the call to the original (proxied) object. The container registers this proxy instead of the proxied object itself, so all dependencies are set to this proxy and all calls from one bean to another go through this proxy. However, the proxied object itself has no pointer to the proxy (it doesn't know it's proxied, only the proxy has a pointer to the target object). So any calls within that object to other methods don't go through the proxy.
(I'm only adding this here for contrast with #Configuration, since you seem to have correct understanding of this part.)
#Configuration
Now while the objects that you usually apply the AOP proxy to are a standard part of your application, the #Configuration class is different - for one, you probably never intend to create any instances of that class directly yourself. This class truly is just a way to write configuration of the bean container, has no meaning outside Spring and you know that it will be used by Spring in a special way and that it has some special semantics outside of just plain Java code - e.g. that #Bean-annotated methods actually define Spring beans.
Because of this, Spring can do much more radical things to this class without worrying that it will break something in your code (remember, you know that you only provide this class for Spring, and you aren't going to ever create or use its instance directly).
What it actually does is it creates a proxy that's subclass of the #Configuration class. This way, it can intercept invocation of every (non-final non-private) method of the #Configuration class, even within the same object (because the methods are effectively all overriden by the proxy, and Java has all the methods virtual). The proxy does exactly this to redirect any method calls that it recognizes to be (semantically) references to Spring beans to the actual bean instances instead of invoking the superclass method.
read a bit spring source code. I try to answer it.
the point is how spring deal with the #Configurationand #bean.
in the ConfigurationClassPostProcessor which is a BeanFactoryPostProcessor, it will enhance all ConfigurationClasses and creat a Enhancer as a subClass.
this Enhancer register two CALLBACKS(BeanMethodInterceptor,BeanFactoryAwareMethodInterceptor).
you call PersistenceJPAConfig method will go through the CALLBACKS. in BeanMethodInterceptor,it will get bean from spring container.
it may be not clearly. you can see the source code in ConfigurationClassEnhancer.java BeanMethodInterceptor.ConfigurationClassPostProcessor.java enhanceConfigurationClasses
You can't call #Transactional method in same class
It's a limitation of Spring AOP (dynamic objects and cglib).
If you configure Spring to use AspectJ to handle the transactions, your code will work.
The simple and probably best alternative is to refactor your code. For example one class that handles users and one that process each user. Then default transaction handling with Spring AOP will work.
Also #Transactional should be on Service layer and not on #Repository
transactions belong on the Service layer. It's the one that knows about units of work and use cases. It's the right answer if you have several DAOs injected into a Service that need to work together in a single transaction.
So you need to rethink your transaction approach, so your methods can be reuse in a flow including several other DAO operations that are roll-able
Spring uses proxying for method invocation and when you use this... it bypasses that proxy. For #Bean annotations Spring uses reflection to find them.

Spring Async for batch insertion

I'm using spring boot. I was new to spring and started a spring project. So I didn't know about pre defined repositories (JPA, CRUD) which can be easily implemented. In case, I wanted to save a bulk data, so I use for loop and save one by one, Its taking more time. So I tried to use #Async. But it doesn't also work, is my concept wrong?
#Async has two limitation
it must be applied to public methods only
self-invocation – calling the async method from within the same class won’t work
1) Controller
for(i=0;i < array.length();i++){
// Other codes
gaugeCategoryService.saveOrUpdate(getEditCategory);
}
2) Dao implementation
#Repository
public class GaugeCategoryDaoImpl implements GaugeCategoryDao {
// Other codings
#Async
#Override
public void saveOrUpdate(GaugeCategory GaugeCategory) {
sessionFactory.getCurrentSession().saveOrUpdate(GaugeCategory);
}
}
After removing #Async , it working normally. But with that annotation it doesn't work. Is there any alternative method for time consuming? Thanks in advance.
the #Async annotation creates a thread for every time you call that method. but you need to enable it in your class using this annotation #EnableAsync
You also need to configure the asyncExecutor Bean.
You can find more details here : https://spring.io/guides/gs/async-method/
In my opinion, there are several issues with your code:
You overwrite the saveOrUpdate() method without any need to do so. A simple call to "super()" should have been enough to make #Async work.
I guess that you somewhere (within your controller class?) declare a transactional context. That one usually applies to the current thread. By using #Async, you might leave this transaction context as (because of the async DAO execution), the main thread may already be finished when saveOrUpdate() is called. And even though I currently don't know it exactly, there is a good change that the declared transaction is only valid for the current thread.
One possble fix: create an additional component like AsyncGaugeCategoryService or so like this:
#Component
public class AsyncGaugeCategoryService {
private final GaugeCategoryDao gaugeCategoryDao;
#Autowired
public AsyncGaugeCategoryService(GaugeCategoryDao gaugeCategoryDao) {
this.gaugeCategoryDao = gaugeCategoryDao;
}
#Async
#Transactional
public void saveOrUpdate(GaugeCategory gaugeCategory) {
gaugeCategoryDao.saveOrUpdate(gaugeCategory);
}
}
Then inject the service instead of the DAO into your controller class. This way, you don't need to overwrite any methods, and you should have a valid transactional context within your async thread.
But be warned that your execution flow won't give you any hint if something goes wrong while storing into the database. You'll have to check the log files to detect any problems.

Lookup for EJB subclass by superclass EJB name

I have a parent and child EJB
#Stateless
#Local(MyCoreLocal.class)
#Remote(MyCore.class)
public class MyCoreEjb implements MyCoreLocal, MyCore {
...
}
#Stateless
#Local(MyCustomizationLocal.class)
#Remote(MyCustomization.class)
public class MyCustomizationEjb extends MyCoreEjb implements MyCustomizationLocal, MyCustomization{
...
}
for architecural reasons at my company, I can't change MyCore project. But both it's all packed together in the same jar and deployed to JBOSS 4.2.3.
The problem is, I have to use MyCustomizationEjb whenever someone calls for MyCoreEjb. How can I override the JNDI entry for MyCoreEjb to point to MyCustomizationEjb in order to redirect all calls for MyCoreEjb transparently to MyCustomizationEjb?
ps: I have full control over ejb-jar.xml of the project, but can't change annotations.
I figured out a way how i could overpass the problem. In reality i didn't need to redirect all call for MyCustomizationEjb. I needed it just for a particular method (at this time).
So my solution was to make a Method Interceptor on the specific method I wanted and just "redirect" the execution to MyCustomizationEjb like this:
public class SpecificMethodInterceptor{
#EJB
MyCustomization myCustomization;
#AroundInvoke
public Object intercept(InvocationContext ctx) throws Exception {
Object result = myCustomization.specificMethod((Param1Type)ctx.getParameters()[0], (Param2Type) ctx.getParameters()[1]);
return result;
}
This way I could now call the extended specificMethod transparently.
I know this is not the most maintainable or scalable solution (since I'll need one interceptor for each method I want to override), but giving this particular project limitations I believe it was the best choice.
Note: There is no problem for not continue the execution (with ctx.proceed()) because this Interceptor is the last one called before the execution reaches the EJB. The only way it could go wrong is if someone make a method interceptor at the EJB, which would be skipped in the execution. But it's not a problem in this particular project.

How to pass data from EJB Interceptor to Interceptor in Async EJB

I have 2 Stateless EJBs StatelessA and StatelessB, both of them have interceptors InterceptorA and InterceptorB respectively. Also, StatelessB has Asynchronous methods. Something like this:
#Stateless
#Interceptors(InterceptorA.class)
public class StatelessA{...
#Stateless
#Asynchronous
#Interceptors(InterceptorB.class)
public class StatelessB{...
When calling a method on StatelessA, it calls several StatelessB methods and returns a value.
I am trying to develop 2 interceptors to store the total time and the subtotal times of StatelessB calls, this is the objective of the interceptors.
I need to do it so InterceptorA can see the detail of InterceptorB data, so I store only a value in the DB, containing the total time (of SLSB A) and the subtotal times (of SLSB B).
I tried using a ThreadLocal variable (containing a list of times, something like long[]), which works fine if StatelessB is not asyncrhonous.
The problem is that when it is asynchronous, the variable is not available, since it is running in a different thread (AFAIK).
I also tried injecting EJBContext or using the InvocationContext, but none of them works.
Can someone point me out what other alternatives do I have?
Thanks in advance.
I was thinking this over and over, and arrived to a solution, which is using the security context to pass data.
The solution involves using the only data propagated in an asynchronous invocation, as specified in EJB 3.1:
4.5.4 Security Caller security principal propagates with an asynchronous method invocation. Caller security principal propagation
behaves exactly the same for asynchronous method invocations as it
does for synchronous session bean invocations.
In JBoss, one can access the security context and use a data map in it to pass the values from InterceptorA to InterceptorB, as follows:
In InterceptorA:
SecurityContext securityContext = SecurityContextAssociation.getSecurityContext();
securityContext.getData().put("interceptorAData",data);
In InterceptorB:
SecurityContext securityContext = SecurityContextAssociation.getSecurityContext();
securityContext.getData().get("interceptorAData");
I tested it and it works great in JBoss EAP 6.1.
This solution implies couplig the interceptor to the server implementation (JBoss AS), but the principle works for other servers.
The advantage is that it decouples the application logic from the interceptors, which was the first objective.
I appreciate any comments.
Would it work to store the information you need in an #Entity object and then use the #PersistenceContext annotation to inject an EntityManager into the beans to persist and find the data? Something like:
#PersistenceContext
EntityManager entityManager;
...
method() {
MyEntityTimer met = new MyEntityTimer(getCurrentTime(), id);
entityManager.persist(met);
}
...
elsewhere:
MyEntityTimer met = entityManager.find(MyEntityTimer.class, id);
and:
#Entity
#Table(name = "TABLE")
public class MyEntityTimer {
#Id
#Column(name = "ID")
private int id;
...
}
I'll answer my question with what I ended up doing.
The only way I found to pass a variable from interceptor A to interceptor B was adding a parameter to the EJBs A and B, something like this:
#Stateless
#Interceptors(InterceptorA.class)
public class StatelessA{
public void methodA(Object reserved, ...other params )
#Stateless
#Asynchronous
#Interceptors(InterceptorB.class)
public class StatelessB{
public void methodB(Object reserved, ...other params)
This way, when InterceptorA is called, I'll set the reserved parameter with the data I need to share with InterceptorB.
InterceptorB will access this variable with no issue getting it from the parameters.
The down side to this solution is that the dummy parameters are needed, coupling in some way the EJBs with the interceptors..

Categories

Resources