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.
Related
I got interested in how Spring's #Transactional works internally, but everywhere I read about it there's a concept of proxy. Proxies are supposed to be autowired in place of real bean and "decorate" base method with additional transaction handling methods.
The theory is quite clear to me and makes perfect sense so I tried to check how it works in action.
I created a Spring Boot application with a basic controller and service layers and marked one method with #Transactional annotation. Service looks like this:
public class TestService implements ITestService {
#PersistenceContext
EntityManager entityManager;
#Transactional
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Service...");
entityManager.persist(new TestEntity("XYZ"));
}}
Controller calls the service:
public class TestController {
#Autowired
ITestService testService;
#PostMapping("/doSomething")
public ResponseEntity addHero() {
testService.doSomething();
System.out.println(Proxy.isProxyClass(testService.getClass()));
System.out.println(testService);
return new ResponseEntity(HttpStatus.OK);
}}
The whole thing works, new entity is persisted to the DB but the whole point of my concern is the output:
Service...
false
com.example.demo.TestService#7fb48179
It seems that the service class was injected explicitly instead of proxy class. Not only "isProxy" returns false, but also the class output ("com.example.demo.TestService#7fb48179") suggests its not a proxy.
Could you please help me out with that? Why wasn't the proxy injected, and how does it even work without proxy? Is there any way I can "force" it to be proxied, and if so - why the proxy is not injected by default by Spring ?
There's not much to be added, this is a really simple app. Application properties are nothing fancy either :
spring.datasource.driver-class-name=com.mysql.jdbc.Driver
spring.datasource.username=root
spring.datasource.password=superSecretPassword
spring.datasource.url=jdbc:mysql://localhost:3306/heroes?serverTimezone=UTC
spring.jpa.hibernate.ddl-auto=create-drop
Thank you in advance!
Your understanding is correct, but your test is flawed:
When the spring docs say "proxy", they are referring to the pattern, not a particular implementation. Spring supports various strategies for creating proxy objects. One of these is the java.lang.reflect.Proxy you tested for, but by default spring uses a more advanced technique that generates a new class definition at runtime that subclasses the actual implementation class of the service (and overrides all methods to apply transaction advice). You can see this in action by checking testService.getClass(), which will refer to that generated class, or by halting execution in a debugger, and inspecting the fields of targetService.
The reason that toString() refers to the original object is that the proxy implements toString() by delegating to its target object, which uses its class name to build the String.
I want to define a annotation like #PlatformRelated, once it is marked in a interface, there will be a proxy bean at spring context, and this proxy bean should be #Priority.I want this proxy could invoke different implement according to key parameter #KeyPrameter.And I still wanna use spring features like #Async,#Trasaction,etc... at my Implement1 and Implement2.
#PlatformRelated
interface MyInterface {
method(#KeyPrameter String parameter);
}
#Component
class Implement1 implements MyInterface {
method(String parameter){
//do something 111
}
}
#Component
class Implement2 implements MyInterface {
method(String parameter){
//do something 222
}
}
#Service
class BusinessService{
#Autowired
private MyInterface myInterface;
public void doSomething() {
myInterface.method("key1");
//Implement1 work
myInterface.method("key2");
//Implement2 work
}
}
Do you guys have some good idea to complete it?
I must admit I haven't totally understood the meaning #Priority, however, I can say that if you want to implement this feature in spring, you should probably take a look at Bean Post Processors.
BeanPostProcessors are essentially a hook to Bean Creation process in spring intended for altering bean behavior.
Among other things, they allow wrapping the underlying bean into the proxy (CGLIB/java.lang.Proxy if you're working with interfaces, or even using programmatically Spring AOP), these proxies can provide a hook to the method execution that can read your annotations (like mentioned #KeyParameter) and execute a code in a way similar to Aspect's code that you already make use of.
Not all bean post processor wrap the bean into the proxy. For example, if you want to implement a BPP that uses "#Autowire", you will return the same bean, just "inject" (read, put by reflection) its dependencies. On the other hand, if you want to implement with BPP #Transactional behavior, then yes, you should wrap the bean into a proxy that would take care of transaction management capabilities before and after the method execution.
It's totally ok to have a spring bean that gets "altered" by many post processors, some of them would wrap it into a proxy other will just modify-and-return the same bean, If there are many BPP-s that wrap the bean into proxy we'll get "proxy inside proxy inside proxy" (you get the idea). Each layer of proxy will handle one specific behavior.
As an example, I suggest you take a look at existing Spring postprocessors, or, for instance, a source code of the following library: Spring Boot metering integration library
This library contains some implementations of post processors that allow metrics infrastructure integration by defining annotations on methods of Spring Beans.
We are using Spring's TransactionInterceptor to set some database partition information using ThreadLocal whenever a DAO method marked with the #Transactional annotation is executed. We need this to be able to route our queries to different database partitions.
This works fine for most DAO methods:
// this causes the invoke method to set a thread-local with the host name of
// the database server the partition is on
#Transactional
public int deleteAll() throws LocalDataException {
The problem is when we need to reference the DAO proxy object itself inside of the DAO. Typically we have to have the caller pass in the proxy-dao:
public Pager<Foo, Long> getPager(FooDao proxyDao) {
This looks like the following in code which is obviously gross.
fooDao.getPager(fooDao);
The problem is that when we are inside of FooDao, the this is not the proxy DAO that we need.
Is there a better mechanism for a bean to discover that it has a proxy wrapper around it? I've looked at the Spring AOPUtils but I see no way to find the proxy for an object. I don't want isAopProxy(...) for example. I've also read the Spring AOP docs but I can't see a solution there unless I implement my own AOP native code which I was hoping to avoid.
I suspect that I might be able to inject the DAO into itself with a ApplicationContextAware utility bean and a setProxyDao(...) method, but that seems like a hack as well. Any other ideas how I can detect the proxy so I can make use of it from within the bean itself? Thanks for any help.
A hacky solution along the lines of what you have suggested, considering that AspectJ compile time or load time weaving will not work for you:
Create an interface along these lines:
public interface ProxyAware<T> {
void setProxy(T proxy);
}
Let your Dao's implement the ProxyAware implementation, now create a BeanPostProcessor with an Ordered interface to run last, along these lines:
public class ProxyInjectingBeanPostProcessor implements BeanPostProcessor, Ordered {
#Override
public Object postProcessBeforeInitialization(Object bean, String beanName) {
return bean;
}
#Override
public Object postProcessAfterInitialization(Object bean, String beanName) {
if (AopUtils.isAopProxy((bean))){
try {
Object target = ((Advised)bean).getTargetSource().getTarget();
if (target instanceof ProxyAware){
((ProxyAware) target).setProxy(bean);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
// ignore
}
}
return bean;
}
#Override
public int getOrder() {
return Ordered.LOWEST_PRECEDENCE;
}
}
It is ugly, but works.
There is a handy static utility AopContext.currentProxy() method provided by Spring which returns a proxy to object from which it was called.
Although using it is considered a bad practice, semantically the same method exists in Java EE as well: SessionContext.getBusinessObject().
I wrote few articles about this utility method and various pitfalls: 1, 2, 3.
Use Spring to inject a bean reference into the bean, even the same bean, just as you would for any other bean reference. No special action required.
The presence of such a variable explicitly acknowledges in the class design that the class expects to be proxied in some manner. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as aop can change behavior that breaks the class contract.
The bean reference would typically be for an interface, and that interface could even be a different one for the self-referenced internal methods.
Keep it simple. That way lies madness. :-)
More importantly, be sure that the semantics make sense. The need to do this may be a code smell that the class is mixing in multiple responsibilities best decomposed into separate beans.
I have a class that is using Spring AOP framework in my web app just like the code shown below. I was wondering why the Spring AOP was able to trace add() but not able trace multiple() if I implement the following code.
public interface calculator {
public void add();
public void multiple();
}
public class calculatorImpl implements calculator {
public void add() {
multiple();
}
public void multiple() {}
}
I've did an experiment and found out that the following code is working fine. Meaning that the Spring AOP able to trace both add and multiple function.
ICalculator calcProxy = (ICalculator) context.getBean("calculatorProxy");
calcProxy.add();
calcProxy.multiple();
I think that must be cause by the multiple() was inject by the proxy bean whereas the multiple() in calculatorImpl class wasn't, thus Spring AOP wasn't able to trace it. Correct me if I am wrong.
My next question. Is there a work around on this issue where the add() really need to execute multiple() and get trace by the Spring AOP?
Spring AOP doesn't change the actual method, but adds a proxy around the Object. Once you are inside the inner Object (inside the add() method), there is no proxy, you are underneath it.
I have explained this mechanism in more detail in this past answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/4171649/342852
There are three ways to deal with that situation:
Use AspectJ, not Spring AOP. AspectJ compiles the behavior into your code, whereas Spring AOP works with proxies that surround your code.
Access the Proxy from inside the Bean. This is reeeeaaally ugly, but it can be done.
Example code (here you make the class aware of it's being proxied, which is contrary to everything AOP stands for):
public void add() {
((Calculator)AopContext.currentProxy()).multiple();
}
Slightly less horrible (here you make the class aware that it's being managed by Spring):
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext context;
public void add() {
context.getBean(Calculator.class).multiple();
}
Change your design. Example: move the two methods to separate beans and inject each into the other bean.
I have a POJO class with a method annotated with #Transactional
public class Pojo {
#Transactional
public void doInTransaction() {
...
}
}
Spring declarative transaction management is based on AOP but I don't have any experience with that. My question is:
Is it possible that when invoking the (new Pojo).doInTransaction() alone, Spring will start a Transaction.
Spring declarative transaction
management is based on APO but I don't
have any experience with that.
I would recommend to start working with it and you will get the experience of using transaction advices using AOP. A good starting point is here.
Is it possible that when invoking the
(new Pojo).doInTransaction() alone,
Spring will start a Transaction.
No, you can't expect Spring to be aware of a bean that you manually invoked. However, it sounds like that you are wanting to avoid declarative transaction management and do programmatic transaction management. There is a way to do that with Spring using the Transaction Template. Is that what you were looking for?
It is somewhat possible, but in a cumbersome way: You must use the AutowireCapableBeanFactory mechanism.
Here is a transactional class as example
public interface FooBar{
void fooIze(Object foo);
}
public class FooBarImpl implements FooBar{
#Transactional
#Override
public void fooIze(final Object foo){
// do stuff here
}
}
And here is how we can use it:
public class FooService implements ApplicationContextAware{
private ApplicationContext applicationContext;
#Override
public void setApplicationContext(
final ApplicationContext applicationContext){
this.applicationContext = applicationContext;
}
public void serviceMethod(){
//declare variable as interface, initialize to implementation
FooBar fooBar = new FooBarImpl();
// try to use it, won't work, as it's not a proxy yet
Object target = new Object[0];
fooBar.fooIze(target); // no transaction
// now let spring create the proxy and re-assign the variable
// to the proxy:
fooBar = // this is no longer an instance of FooBarImpl!!!
(FooBar) applicationContext
.getAutowireCapableBeanFactory()
.applyBeanPostProcessorsAfterInitialization(fooBar,
"someBeanName");
fooBar.fooIze(fooBar); // this time it should work
}
}
This is not a best practice. For one thing, it makes your application highly aware of the Spring Framework and also, it violates the dependency injection principles. So use this only if there is no other way!
Yes, it is possible. Spring does not require the use of dynamic proxies for #Transactional to work. Instead, you can use "true AOP", as provided by AspectJ.
For the details, see http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.0.x/spring-framework-reference/html/transaction.html#transaction-declarative-aspectj
The way Spring handle the transaction through Annotation is using AOP as you've said.
The AOP bit is implemented using Dynamic Proxies (see doc)
So in order to do so you'll need to retrieve an instance of your class (Pojo here) through the spring container since to make it work, Spring will return you a Dynamic Proxy over your Pojo that will automatically surround any annotated method with the transaction management code.
If you simply do a
Pojo p = new Pojo();
p.doInTransaction();
Spring doesn't have any role to play here and your method call won't be inside a transaction.
so what you need to do is something like this
ApplicationContext springContext = ...;
Pojo p = (Pojo) springContext.getBean("your.pojo.id");
p.doInTransaction();
Note: this is an example, you should prefer dependency injection instead of retrieving your bean manually from the context
By doing so, and with a properly configured Spring Context, Spring should have lookout your classes to scan for transactional annotation and automatically wrapped your beans into annotation aware dynamic proxies instances. From your point of view that doesn't change anything, you'll still cast your object to your own Classes, but if you try to print out the class name of your spring context Pojo bean, you'll get something as Proxy$... and not your original class name.
Have a look at this link anyway : link text