One of the main advantage of using spring dependency injection is for testing the functionality using same interface with different implementation without making any changes in the code, that is through injecting these different implementations(dependencies) in configuration file.
Lets take an example where we have developed our application with java configuration/annotation based (No .xml files at all).
We have done a code freeze and have deployed the code in server.
Now for a QA team to perform testing they need to inject different implementations for the interface by making changes in configuration file without touching code.
If its a .xml file, devOps team can inject the different implementation by injecting that bean name and can restart the server.
But since we have used the annotations based/java based configuration, How can we achieve this ?
Thanks in advance.
One of the main advantage of using spring dependency injection is for
testing the functionality using same interface with different
implementation
One of main advantages of Spring is indeed the dependency injection facility.
But you will also find very often cases where you have beans with a single implementation :
beans that rely on an interface but there is only one implementation for it.
bean that don't rely on any interface but are straight classes that you want to turn into injectable beans.
We have done a code freeze and have deployed the code in server. Now
for a QA team to perform testing they need to inject different
implementations for the interface by making changes in configuration
file without touching code.
Spring and more generally dependency injection pattern/frameworks are not designed to perform hot swapping or implementation modification of a deployed component without repackaging the component.
At startup, Spring creates its context and loads all required beans for the application in its container.
If you want to change configurations of some beans, the most clean and side effect less way is destroying the spring context/container, repackage the application with the needed changes and restart it.
If its a .xml file, QA team can inject the different implementation by
injecting that bean name and can restart the server.
Ideally, the QA team should test the implementation that you deploy in QA env and that will be used by final users to stay the closest of the real functioning of the application.
Now, if because of some specific constraints, some components to test by the QA should be mocked/stubbed in a some way, just create a different build for that.
Spring Boot Profile and Maven Profile features can help for.
I have set up my project in multiple modules based on the Spring framework. Currently there is only one runnable application combining all those modules.
Some of the modules provide functionality that might be reusable by other projects (or at least I could imagine reusing them in an other project). Some (but not all) modules also provide s spring Configuration. However when trying to create an application based on that configuration alone, requires defining many beans on top. This suggests that the configuration at that level does not make much sense, as there are dependencies on the level of Maven, which are not reflected in the Spring configuration.
As I am moving toward Spring Boot does this set up make sense or should the beans be defined at the level, where the configuration dependencies and Maven dependencies do match?
Assuming you have a rather big Spring application (including sources) at hand and you want to gather all kinds of information about the contexts beans at runtime : bean names, types, classes, child application contexts, property values, annotations, proxies structure etc.
What kind of tools would one use to find out ?
I used to maintain https://github.com/krosenvold/spring-context-analyzer, which detects problematic scope transitions. might need some adjudtments for spring versions >3
Looks like SpringSource is coming up with a solution called "Live Beans Graph" which is supposed to be shipping with STS 3.1. https://issuetracker.springsource.com/browse/STS-2810 has some details.
Recently in our team we started discussing using spring annotations in code to define spring dependencies. Currently we are using context.xml to define our dependencies. Would you give me some clues for either approach, and when one is better to be used?
Edit: I know this seems a duplicate question to a more-general one, but I am interested in the impacts of annotations vs configuration for dependency injection only, which I believe would have different answers and attitude than the general question.
After reading some related posts here and having further discussion in the team we come to the following conclusions. I hope the would be useful to others here.
About XML configuration (which we are using up to now), we decided to keep it for dependencies defined by libraries (regardless if being developed by us, or by third parties).
Libraries, by definition, provide a particular functionality and can be used in various scenarios, not necessarily involving DI. Therefore, using annotations in the library projects we develop ourselves, would create a dependency of the DI framework (Spring in our case) to the library, making the library unusable in non-DI context. Having extra dependencies is not considered a good practice among our team (an in general IMHO).
When we are assembling an application, the application context would define the necessary dependencies. This will simplify dependency tracking as the application becomes the central unit of combining all the referenced components, and usually this is indeed where all the wiring up should happen.
XML is also good for us when providing mock implementations for many components, without recompiling the application modules that will use them. This gives us flexibility when testing running in local or production environment.
In regards to annotations, we decided that we can benefit using them when the injected components will not vary -- for instance only a certain implementation for a component will be used troughout the application.
The annotations will be very useful for small components/applications that will not change or support different implementations of a dependency at once, and that are unlikely to be composed in a different way (for instance using different dependencies for different builds). Simple micro-services would fit in this category.
Small enough components, made up with annotations, can be used right out of the box in different projects, without having the respective applications to cover them in their XML configuration. This would simplify the application dependency wiring for the application and reduce repetitive setups.
However, we agreed that such components should have the dependencies well described in our technical documentation, so that when assembling the entire application, one can have an idea of these dependencies without scrolling through the code, or even loading the module in the IDE.
A negative side effect of annotation-configured components, is that different components could bring clashing transitive dependencies, and again it is up to the final application to resolve the conflicts. When these dependencies are not defined in XML, the conflict resolution approaches become quite limited and straying far from the best practices, if they are at all possible.
So, when going with annotations, the component has to be mature enough about what dependencies it is going use.
In general if our dependencies may vary for different scenarios, or a module can be used with different components, we decided to stick to XML. Clearly, there MUST be a right balance between both approaches, and a clear idea for the usages.
An important update regarding the mixed approach. Recently we had a case with a test framework we created for our QA team, which required dependencies from another project. The framework was designed to use the annotation approach and Spring configuration classes, while the referenced project had some xml contexts that we needed to reference. Unfortunately, the test classes (where we used org.testng with spring support) could only work with either the xml or java configuration classes, not mixing both.
This situation illustrates a case where mixing the approaches would clash and clearly, one must be discarded. In our case, we migrated the test framework to use spring xml contexts, but other uses could imply the other way around.
Some advantages of using XML configuration:
The XML configuration is at one place, instead of being scattered all over the source code in case of annotations. Some people may argue that IDEs like STS allow you to look at all annotations based configuration in one place, but I never like having dependencies on IDEs.
Its takes a little more efforts to write XML config, but it saves a lot of time later when you search for dependencies and try to understand the project.
XML keeps configuration well organized and simple. Hence is easier to understand, it helps new relatively inexperienced team members get up to speed quickly.
Allows you to change the config without a need to recompile and redeploy code. So it is better, when it comes to production support.
So in short XML configuration takes a little more efforts, but it saves you a lot of time & headache later in big projects.
2.5 years later:
We use annotations mostly these days, but most crucial change is that we create many small projects (instead of a one big project). Hence understanding dependencies is not a problem anymore; as each project has it's unique purpose and relatively small codebase.
from my experience, I would prefer(or rather am forced by limitations) to use a combination of XML and annotation based DI . If I need to inject a Map of elements inside a bean , I would have to define a util:map and autowire it . Also, I need to use XML DI to inject datasource into the sessionFactory if I have multiple datasources and so on . So a combination of both would be requited .
I prefer the usage of component-scan to autodetect the services and Dao . This cuts down a lot of Configuration (We cut down the configuration files by around 50% switching to component-scan). Annotation based DI supports both byName(#Resource) and byType(#Autowired).
In short my advice to be to go for a fixture of both . I feel that more annotation support will definitely be on cards in future Spring releases.
Take a look at this answer here: Xml configuration versus Annotation based configuration
A short quote directly from there:
Annotations have their use, but they are not the one silver bullet to
kill XML configuration. I recommend mixing the two!
For instance, if using Spring, it is entirely intuitive to use XML for
the dependency injection portion of your application. This gets the
code's dependencies away from the code which will be using it, by
contrast, using some sort of annotation in the code that needs the
dependencies makes the code aware of this automatic configuration.
However, instead of using XML for transactional management, marking a
method as transactional with an annotation makes perfect sense, since
this is information a programmer would probably wish to know.
EDIT: Also, take a look at the answers here: Java Dependency injection: XML or annotations They most probably target the area of your interest much better.
From my own experience annotations better than xml configuration. I think in any case you can override xmls and use annotations. Also Spring 4 give us a huge support for annotations, we can override security from xml to annotations e.t.c, so we will have not 100 lines xml but 10 lines Java Code.
Are annotations better than XML for configuring Spring?
The introduction of annotation-based configurations raised the
question of whether this approach is 'better' than XML. The short
answer is it depends. The long answer is that each approach has its
pros and cons, and usually it is up to the developer to decide which
strategy suits them better. Due to the way they are defined,
annotations provide a lot of context in their declaration, leading to
shorter and more concise configuration. However, XML excels at wiring
up components without
touching their source code or recompiling them. Some developers prefer
having the wiring close to the source while others argue that
annotated classes are no longer POJOs and, furthermore, that the
configuration becomes decentralized and harder to control.
No matter the choice, Spring can accommodate both styles and even mix
them together. It’s worth pointing out that through its JavaConfig
option, Spring allows annotations to be used in a non- invasive way,
without touching the target components source code and that in terms
of tooling, all configuration styles are supported by the Spring Tool
Suite.
my personal option is that xml is better since you have all at one place and you do not need to deep into your packages to search the class.
We can not tell which method is good, it depends on your project. We can nither avoid xml nor annotation. One advantage of using xml is that we can understand the project structure just seeing the xml context files, but annotation reduces lots of meta configuration. So I prefer 30% xml and 70% annotation.
By using XML, you prevent code from being polluted with framework-specific annotations and thus creating an undesired coupling. Keep the framework at the application boundary so you can always replace it should the need arise.
Frameworks come and go, but many applications live for decades. Fortunately, Spring is a non-invasive framework and doesn't bend your architecture. Keeping the configuration in XML will make it even more detached from your application.
Remark: in order to benefit from all this, your application should be well-designed in the first place.
If I want to be able to re-use my hibernate related code with multiple IntelliJ solutions, what should I do?
Should I move my models (with annotations) and Dao's and service classes to their own module?
How would I then be able to re-use this module/project with other intellij solutions?
I guess they would have to compile down to a seperate .jar right?
It is possible to configure an IDEA project to point to a module in an external location. So you could configure multiple IDEA projects to point to the same hibernate module. This is a solution for a one-man show, primarily (although see here about using a variable to make this location configurable).
In order to make this distributable and sharable among multiple developers, you are looking at building a jar out of one module, or if it has no particular meaning to any specific project, making a new project that has the code and produces the jar, which other projects then have as a library.
You can use Spring or Guice for dependency injection. Refactor your dao/services to use generic, so if your children modules don't share the same pojo you can still reuse all your hibernate codes (for dao and services) without any duplications (although you might want to make them abstract, in this case)