I have been working with Spring Data JPA repository in my project for some time and I know the below points:
In the repository interfaces, we can add the methods like findByCustomerNameAndPhone() (assuming customerName and phone are fields in the domain object).
Then, Spring provides the implementation by implementing the above repository interface methods at runtime (during the application run).
I am interested on how this has been coded and I have looked at the Spring JPA source code & APIs, but I could not find answers to the questions below:
How is the repository implementation class generated at runtime & methods being implemented and injected?
Does Spring Data JPA use CGlib or any bytecode manipulation libraries to implement the methods and inject dynamically?
Could you please help with the above queries and also provide any supported documentation ?
First of all, there's no code generation going on, which means: no CGLib, no byte-code generation at all. The fundamental approach is that a JDK proxy instance is created programmatically using Spring's ProxyFactory API to back the interface and a MethodInterceptor intercepts all calls to the instance and routes the method into the appropriate places:
If the repository has been initialized with a custom implementation part (see that part of the reference documentation for details), and the method invoked is implemented in that class, the call is routed there.
If the method is a query method (see DefaultRepositoryInformation for how that is determined), the store specific query execution mechanism kicks in and executes the query determined to be executed for that method at startup. For that a resolution mechanism is in place that tries to identify explicitly declared queries in various places (using #Query on the method, JPA named queries) eventually falling back to query derivation from the method name. For the query mechanism detection, see JpaQueryLookupStrategy. The parsing logic for the query derivation can be found in PartTree. The store specific translation into an actual query can be seen e.g. in JpaQueryCreator.
If none of the above apply the method executed has to be one implemented by a store-specific repository base class (SimpleJpaRepository in case of JPA) and the call is routed into an instance of that.
The method interceptor implementing that routing logic is QueryExecutorMethodInterceptor, the high level routing logic can be found here.
The creation of those proxies is encapsulated into a standard Java based Factory pattern implementation. The high-level proxy creation can be found in RepositoryFactorySupport. The store-specific implementations then add the necessary infrastructure components so that for JPA you can go ahead and just write code like this:
EntityManager em = … // obtain an EntityManager
JpaRepositoryFactory factory = new JpaRepositoryFactory(em);
UserRepository repository = factory.getRepository(UserRepository.class);
The reason I mention that explicitly is that it should become clear that, in its core, nothing of that code requires a Spring container to run in the first place. It needs Spring as a library on the classpath (because we prefer to not reinvent the wheel), but is container agnostic in general.
To ease the integration with DI containers we've of course then built integration with Spring Java configuration, an XML namespace, but also a CDI extension, so that Spring Data can be used in plain CDI scenarios.
Related
I am looking into Spring data and one thing I've noticed is that we're able to perform CRUD operations just by creating an interface which implements the CRUD repository and by default, we're given access to generated queieres to the db via the method name.
I thought whenever we implement an Interface, we need to provide an implementation to the methods. So why don't we override anything when we use an interface which implements from the CrudRepository interface?
One of the goals of Spring Data is to make database access easy, without the need to manually write a lot of boilerplate code.
Traditionally, one of the things developers commonly did when working with a database is write DAOs (database access objects) with methods, where each method would do a specific query. Such methods would typically be boilerplate code - simple, repetitive code that's a lot of work to write and maintain and that doesn't contain any business logic.
When you use Spring Data, all this code is automatically generated for you. The only thing you have to do is specify in a repository interface what query you want to do, and Spring Data then interprets the meaning of the method name to automatically generate the code that does the query for you.
That saves you a lot of time and helps you a great deal to keep your own code concise; it also helps with the prevention of bugs.
The implementation of a Spring Data repository interface is generated automatically at runtime. This isn't done by generating source code which is compiled - behind the scenes Spring Data directly generates the bytecode of the implementation of the interface.
I want to use a mix of SpringDataJpa and Eclipselink/Hibernate for persistence in my application. Till now, I have come across an approach detailed here. What I want to is use Spring Data JPARepository for CRUD operations and use a conventional #Repository bean for more complex queries or other functionality. It is important that I ensure the same entityManager is used for both, the usual method calls to the #Repository class and calls to the spring JpaRepository interface (class generated by spring).
My setup is done as in the example given here.
Don't.
Why would you split the repository bean in two (from the perspective of the user of the repository). You can have custom methods in your repository of which you completely control the implementation.
If you really want to you can always inject an EntityManager in other classes and if they participate in the same transaction (and you don't have some really weird setup) you will using the same single EntityManager in all places.
I have been working with Spring Data JPA repository in my project for some time and I know the below points:
In the repository interfaces, we can add the methods like findByCustomerNameAndPhone() (assuming customerName and phone are fields in the domain object).
Then, Spring provides the implementation by implementing the above repository interface methods at runtime (during the application run).
I am interested on how this has been coded and I have looked at the Spring JPA source code & APIs, but I could not find answers to the questions below:
How is the repository implementation class generated at runtime & methods being implemented and injected?
Does Spring Data JPA use CGlib or any bytecode manipulation libraries to implement the methods and inject dynamically?
Could you please help with the above queries and also provide any supported documentation ?
First of all, there's no code generation going on, which means: no CGLib, no byte-code generation at all. The fundamental approach is that a JDK proxy instance is created programmatically using Spring's ProxyFactory API to back the interface and a MethodInterceptor intercepts all calls to the instance and routes the method into the appropriate places:
If the repository has been initialized with a custom implementation part (see that part of the reference documentation for details), and the method invoked is implemented in that class, the call is routed there.
If the method is a query method (see DefaultRepositoryInformation for how that is determined), the store specific query execution mechanism kicks in and executes the query determined to be executed for that method at startup. For that a resolution mechanism is in place that tries to identify explicitly declared queries in various places (using #Query on the method, JPA named queries) eventually falling back to query derivation from the method name. For the query mechanism detection, see JpaQueryLookupStrategy. The parsing logic for the query derivation can be found in PartTree. The store specific translation into an actual query can be seen e.g. in JpaQueryCreator.
If none of the above apply the method executed has to be one implemented by a store-specific repository base class (SimpleJpaRepository in case of JPA) and the call is routed into an instance of that.
The method interceptor implementing that routing logic is QueryExecutorMethodInterceptor, the high level routing logic can be found here.
The creation of those proxies is encapsulated into a standard Java based Factory pattern implementation. The high-level proxy creation can be found in RepositoryFactorySupport. The store-specific implementations then add the necessary infrastructure components so that for JPA you can go ahead and just write code like this:
EntityManager em = … // obtain an EntityManager
JpaRepositoryFactory factory = new JpaRepositoryFactory(em);
UserRepository repository = factory.getRepository(UserRepository.class);
The reason I mention that explicitly is that it should become clear that, in its core, nothing of that code requires a Spring container to run in the first place. It needs Spring as a library on the classpath (because we prefer to not reinvent the wheel), but is container agnostic in general.
To ease the integration with DI containers we've of course then built integration with Spring Java configuration, an XML namespace, but also a CDI extension, so that Spring Data can be used in plain CDI scenarios.
I'm building a web application that primarily constitutes of CRUD operations of data from back end/database. There are instances where in I have to write business logic(I'm sure we will have more business logic built as we go deeper in to development). Currently for each UI screen I'm creating I create a model class,Service class, DAO class, a controller(it's servlet essentially) and bunch of jsp pages. In most cases the service class just calls the methods from DAO to pass in model objects. Essentially we use model classes to map data from UI screens. Hence the controller will have the model objects populated when a form is submitted. I have started using service classes to keep a separation layer from web layer to DAO layer. But at times I feel that the service class is just adding unnecessary level of API calls, I would think that I could just inject the DAO in to Controller and complete the task faster. I want to use the service class only when there is additional business logic to be performed. If you have to design an application what factors do you consider using controller->DAO vs controller->Service->DAO control flow?
DAOs are more granular and deal with one specific entity. Services provide macro level functionalities and can end up using more than one DAO. Typically, Services are used for defining transaction boundaries to gain atomicity. In other words, if you end up updating multiple tables using multiple DAOs, defining transaction boundary at service will help in either committing or rollbacking all the changes done to DB.
In your design, since you are primarily doing CRUD for various entities, it may seem that services are not adding much value. However, think of web-based front end as one way of updating data. Usage of services will allow you to expose same capabilities as a web-service later to other forms of client like third party integrators, etc.
So, in summary, your design seems to be in line with conventional practices. If you feel that you can combine multiple services into one based on some common theme such that it can reduce the overhead of code, then, you should go ahead and do it. At the end of day, ultimate goal is to create maintainable code which no one is afraid to change when need arises.
In Pro-Spring-3 book they mentioned below line, for controller with JPA2
Once the EntityManagerFactory had been properly configured, injecting it into your service layer
classes is very simple.
and they are using the same class as service and repository as in below:
package com.apress.prospring3.ch10.service.jpa;
// Import statements omitted
#Service("jpaContactService")
#Repository
#Transactional
public class ContactServiceImpl implements ContactService {
private Log log = LogFactory.getLog(ContactServiceImpl.class);
#PersistenceContext
private EntityManager em;
// Other code omitted
}
but in case you are going to use spring-data CRUDRepository or JPARepository then your DAO will be Interface and you have to make service layer to handle your code
I'd reference my answer here
The long and short of it is the advantage of using a Service layer is it gives you room to move in the future if you want to do anything with Spring Security and roles etc. It allows you to handle transactions more atomically and Spring itself has really nice annotations for this.
Use a service class when dealing with more than one aggregate root.
Inject repositories (aka a dao that returns a collection) or dao's directly into controller, no need for an extra layer/class to do a basic get.
Only use service classes where necessary, otherwise you have twice as much code as required.
You can make repository generic, and annoatoate with #Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED) which enforces a transaction is present, but won't create a new one if already present. So if you later use multple repositoes in one service class method, you will only have the one transaction.
I am confused about the structure of creating service layer and DAO layer:
in some examples I see some people creating interface+implementation for both service and DAO and in other examples I see people creating implementation only specially when the DAOs extends an AbstractDao class that contains generic methods for those DAOs, so I am confused about what to go for, why to go for this solution or the other one, and what is the best practise (commonly used) please advise.
I suggest to create interfaces for service and for DAO. Very often you would like to mock service in unit tests of code, that use this serice.
Also Spring, for example, forces you to use interfaces when you are using some Spring proxies for example for transactions. So you should have an interface for service.
DAO is more internal part, but I always try to use interfaces for them to simplify testing.
I prefer interface + implementations for the following reasons:
Interfaces becomes contracts: they tell you what is available to call, and you never worry about the implementation thereof, provided that the result is expected.
You can create customizable implementation of the interface without breaking other implementations of the same interface (generally useful when writing unit test). Customizing an implemented only class can bring more error than you don't notice easily.
It creates a framework that can be documented.
Implemented subclasses are used to create the business/application logic that conforms to the interface contract.
I have only done the implementations of service layer, didn't bother with interfaces (except where I had to). I probably should get around to writing the interfaces, but no problems so far. I am doing unit testing just fine without mocking the service layer.
Also, I don't have a DAO layer, as I am using hibernate and it seemed overkill. A lot of my reasoning is based on this blog, eloquently written by Bozho.
I think it is quite debatable (whether to have DAO and hibernate), however I am quite happy with my decision, I pass in thick domain objects and then just make a call to the hibernate session. Each method on the dao layer would literally only be one line (session.persist(mObject), or similar).
One argument I heard against it was a dao layer would make it easier to change/remove orm at a later date. I am not sure if the time spent coding the dao layer in the first place added to the time coding the change, would be less than coding the change without dao layer on its own. I have never had to change ORM technology any where I worked so its a small risk.
From my point of view when you say Service you should have interfaces and if you can't provide or will not provide that, then you don't have the contract between the service and the consumer and it's not a service anymore, you can call it anything else
The interface+implementation is used in order to have loose coupling. You have the flexibility of changing or switching implementations easily without major changes in code.
Think of a scenario where you are using Hibernate for persistence(DAO Layer) and you need to switch to JPA or iBatis or any other ORM for that matter.
If you are using interfaces, you can simply write an implementation specific to JPA and "plug" it in place of Hibernate. The service code remains the same.
Another argument for interface+implementation model is that proxies for interfaces are supported by Java itself while creating proxies for implementations requires using library such as cglib. And this proxies are necessary for transaction support etc.
Check out my post about "fastcode" an eclipse-spring plugin that generates the service layer off your DAO's. Works like a charm.
generate service /dao layer for GWT/Spring/Hibernate/PostgreSQL