I want to develop an enterprise level application using spring MVC in presentation layer and spring in Business Logic Layer and hibernate in data access layer.
But i want to keep the presentation layer in a web server, multiple business logic layer in multiple server and data access layer in another physical server that means i want to establish a n tier solution using spring mvc.
I am able to separate the layer in my architecture. But the problem is my solution is just work on a single server. I cant do a architecture for multiple physical server.
Suppose that, from controller i use #Autowired annotation to inject the object of business logic layer. But how can i establish a system where controller talks to business logic layer over the network and business logic layer talks to data access layer over network as well.
If anyone can describe the solution in details then it would be very helpful for me.
Thanks...
You should be able to divide your code quite easily. Let's call your data access layer a "Data Provider" service and business logic layer "Business Service".
Now, you have to decide what kind of network protocol are you going to use.
These days REST is the most popular one and also it is very easy to setup your REST endpoints with Spring MVC (use #RestController on the server and RestTemplate on the client). You can also use RMI if you want to really couple your services (Data Provider and Business Service) using the same Java code (interfaces, DTOs etc.)
I have a design/architectural problem:
I've started developing a java web application. I thought of using 3 layers: a persistence layer (with jpa and hibernate), a business layer and a presentation layer. My problem now is:
the jpa entities would make the model but can or may I use the entities as business objects?
Is this a practice? My common sense says I shouldn't, but then, I need to duplicate these entities as business objects?
Finally, I'd like the presentation layer to be really decoupled from the other layers. While using spring mvc with jsp at first, I'd like. if it's suitable, at some moment to switch to javascript-based application that communicates with the backend through rest requests.
Yes, you can. Outside the persistence context, the JPA Entities are like simple POJOs. It is legal to use them in business code (actually, as hinted by JB Nizet, you usually ALWAYS use them in your business layer without DAO). If it is tightly related to the Entity, you can even add business logic into your JPA beans. Nevertheless, it will be harder to read and understand what the code does. But if you have a reason to do that - there is nothing illegal. It all comes down to software design practices and what you need most.
When you want to change your app into the REST-powered service, it is not difficult. You will have to change the Servlet you are currently running your app with for a JAX-RS or other framework Servlet which will handle HTTP requests in a REST manner for you. It is done in web.xml. Then, you will place your html-pages in any place, where it is accesible for the remote hosts, and connect them to your REST-service with the Javascript AJAX or sth. You should take care of CORS then.
I've participated in several projects of Spring-based web-application - and have written a quantity myself. Usually we have (roughly speaking) following folders to divide our classes by categories like dao, models, web (for controllers if we use Spring MVC or backing beans for JSF for example) and also service - here we keep what we think is business-logic (even when sometimes classes here simply forward methods to dao).
Now I am faced with development of EJB application - I've learnt that I will have some web and model classes anyway. Also I may use dedicated dao layer or may put data access into facades (I prefer dedicated folder though it increases verbosity).
But I do not understand clearly whether facades are exactly the place to put business-logic in it, or I should add services folder for it and use facades more like dao (eliminating dao itself).
I also would be glad for short and comprehensive compilation of hints on EJB application architecture.
I would go with a similar setup with EJB as you have done with Spring. You have your web package (MVC stuff), then your service layer which contains most business logic and then DAO layer which contains basic CRUD operations and some database queries.
In this scenario you can test the possibly complex business logic in the session beans with fast unit tests that don't need database and you can mock the DAO access here. Then you can have relatively simple tests for your DAO layer, so the number of tests requiring database (ie. that are consirably slower) is smaller.
Normally I would call facade a set of session beans that offer simple methods for operating the system via for example Web services. These beans would use the normal service layer beans. With just a web layer and no integration layers I don't see a reason to create an extra facade layer.
I am rewriting my client-server rich client database application (Swing) to a three-tiered application with a Netbeans RCP rich-client.
By default Hibernate and other JPA providers can be used only in a very cumbersome way from rich clients (native database connection not cutting through firewalls, loosing lazy-loading, conceptual problems with managing Session/EntityManager lifecycles...etc other problems). So one needs some kind of extension for using them comfortably in rich clients.
Normally, rich clients call webservices in the business logic tier (on the server). Usually, dedicated web-service methods handle the CRUD operations of every object type.
Now, I wouldn't like to write a custom web-service for the CRUD operations of each and every persistent class of my application so I thought there may be a generic persistence web-service for these kind of operations which can handle at least all of the CRUD operations of the application.
Is there such a persistence service???
Here are the details of my ideas/requirements:
The service should work with JPA-annotated POJOs so it should use some kind JPA persistence provider on the server. Currently, I am using Hibernate so if it actively supports Hibernate, it is a plus. Of course the POJO classes must be included in the server side JPA configuration, I don't expect to handle ANY KIND of unknown POJOs.
I wouldn't like to create separate Value Objects or Data Transfer Objects for sending data between the client and server parts of the service. I would like to use only JPA annotated POJOs even for transfer. I believe this is standard practice nowadays.
The client should receive data and send data with HTTP requests to the server-side of the service, in order to lessen firewall communication problems. HTTP proxy usage should be configurable.
The client side of the persistence service can get POJO list results for its executed JPA QL queries (sent as a simple query string, optionally ** named parameters** also sent in the request). These queries are sent from the client in the form of a webservice call or simple HTTP request to a servlet. It would be nice if several JPA queries could be sent in one request. The client receives the result of the requests as lists of POJOs which may have lazy-loaded collections and object references (these are not sent from the server in query-time).
The client side of the persistence service should be able to fulfill lazy-loading requests automatically/transparently, when the client application accesses a lazy-loaded attribute in a POJO (at a later point in time, not at the initial query). So, transparent lazy loading should remain working after the POJO has been transferred to the client.
New, updated/dirty or to-be-deleted POJOs can be sent by the client side of the persistence service to the server where the changes get persisted and success/failure statuses are sent back (e.g. the ID which was given to the newly persisted POJOs). Several to-be-saved POJOs could be sent in one request.
It should have a mechanism for marking transaction boundaries, so more than one independent HTTP service calls could be executed in one database transaction (keeping something like Session/EntityManager.beginTransaction(), commit() and rollback()).
Would be nice if validation and access control checks could be plugged into the server component.
Is there such a persistence service project???
Possibly as an extension shipped with a JPA persistence provider?
When I designed a similar app back in 2002, we searched far and wide for a framework to use, but finally had to run our own.
Transporting sub-graphs of persistent objects to the swing client was done by translating those to DTO (DataTransferObjects) objects, which maintained an attribute mapping and information if an attribute was being dirtied by the client. On the way back to the server, only the dirtied attributes were updated in a trx.
You might want to use JDO 2.0 as a persistence layer. It supports detaching objects or sub-trees from a persistent object graph, sending those detached objects over the wire and re-attaching those in a later transaction.
However, you lose the ability to minimize the data you send across the wire.
Best bet so far: Run your own mechanism and add a createDTO and updateFromDTO method to your persistent objects, but I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.
Transactions, server request handling, validation, and access control are all things that, like you said, are way beyond the realm of the persistence layer. You will not find a persistence service that implements these things.
That being said, there are many web frameworks that quickly provide you with a basic implementation of the CRUD operations. In particular the term you're looking for is scaffolding.
Grails is a popular web framework for Java that provides scaffolding. I'm sure there are many others. I would suggest taking a look at Grails.
I will use Spring with JPA. Spring provides reasonable defaults to most persistence management issue you mentioned.(Transaction management, lazy loading)
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Let's share Java based web application architectures!
There are lots of different architectures for web applications which are to be implemented using Java. The answers to this question may serve as a library of various web application designs with their pros and cons. While I realize that the answers will be subjective, let's try to be as objective as we can and motivate the pros and cons we list.
Use the detail level you prefer for describing your architecture. For your answer to be of any value you'll at least have to describe the major technologies and ideas used in the architecture you describe. And last but not least, when should we use your architecture?
I'll start...
Overview of the architecture
We use a 3-tier architecture based on open standards from Sun like Java EE, Java Persistence API, Servlet and Java Server Pages.
Persistence
Business
Presentation
The possible communication flows between the layers are represented by:
Persistence <-> Business <-> Presentation
Which for example means that the presentation layer never calls or performs persistence operations, it always does it through the business layer. This architecture is meant to fulfill the demands of a high availability web application.
Persistence
Performs create, read, update and delete (CRUD) persistence operations. In our case we are using (Java Persistence API) JPA and we currently use Hibernate as our persistence provider and use its EntityManager.
This layer is divided into multiple classes, where each class deals with a certain type of entities (i.e. entities related to a shopping cart might get handled by a single persistence class) and is used by one and only one manager.
In addition this layer also stores JPA entities which are things like Account, ShoppingCart etc.
Business
All logic which is tied to the web application functionality is located in this layer. This functionality could be initiating a money transfer for a customer who wants to pay for a product on-line using her/his credit card. It could just as well be creating a new user, deleting a user or calculating the outcome of a battle in a web based game.
This layer is divided into multiple classes and each of these classes is annotated with #Stateless to become a Stateless Session Bean (SLSB). Each SLSB is called a manager and for instance a manager could be a class annotated as mentioned called AccountManager.
When AccountManager needs to perform CRUD operations it makes the appropriate calls to an instance of AccountManagerPersistence, which is a class in the persistence layer. A rough sketch of two methods in AccountManager could be:
...
public void makeExpiredAccountsInactive() {
AccountManagerPersistence amp = new AccountManagerPersistence(...)
// Calls persistence layer
List<Account> expiredAccounts = amp.getAllExpiredAccounts();
for(Account account : expiredAccounts) {
this.makeAccountInactive(account)
}
}
public void makeAccountInactive(Account account) {
AccountManagerPersistence amp = new AccountManagerPersistence(...)
account.deactivate();
amp.storeUpdatedAccount(account); // Calls persistence layer
}
We use container manager transactions so we don't have to do transaction demarcation our self's. What basically happens under the hood is we initiate a transaction when entering the SLSB method and commit it (or rollback it) immediately before exiting the method. It's an example of convention over configuration, but we haven't had a need for anything but the default, Required, yet.
Here is how The Java EE 5 Tutorial from Sun explains the Required transaction attribute for Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB's):
If the client is running within a
transaction and invokes the enterprise
bean’s method, the method executes
within the client’s transaction. If
the client is not associated with a
transaction, the container starts a
new transaction before running the
method.
The Required attribute is the implicit
transaction attribute for all
enterprise bean methods running with
container-managed transaction
demarcation. You typically do not set
the Required attribute unless you need
to override another transaction
attribute. Because transaction
attributes are declarative, you can
easily change them later.
Presentation
Our presentation layer is in charge of... presentation! It's responsible for the user interface and shows information to the user by building HTML pages and receiving user input through GET and POST requests. We are currently using the old Servlet's + Java Server Pages (JSP) combination.
The layer calls methods in managers of the business layer to perform operations requested by the user and to receive information to show in the web page. Sometimes the information received from the business layer are less complex types as String's and integers, and at other times JPA entities.
Pros and cons with the architecture
Pros
Having everything related to a specific way of doing persistence in this layer only means we can swap from using JPA into something else, without having to re-write anything in the business layer.
It's easy for us to swap our presentation layer into something else, and it's likely that we will if we find something better.
Letting the EJB container manage transaction boundaries is nice.
Using Servlet's + JPA is easy (to begin with) and the technologies are widely used and implemented in lots of servers.
Using Java EE is supposed to make it easier for us to create a high availability system with load balancing and fail over. Both of which we feel that we must have.
Cons
Using JPA you may store often used queries as named queries by using the #NamedQuery annotation on the JPA entity class. If you have as much as possible related to persistence in the persistence classes, as in our architecture, this will spread out the locations where you may find queries to include the JPA entities as well. It will be harder to overview persistence operations and thus harder to maintain.
We have JPA entities as part of our persistence layer. But Account and ShoppingCart, aren't they really business objects? It is done this way as you have to touch these classes and turn them into entities which JPA knows how to handle.
The JPA entities, which are also our business objects, are created like Data Transfer Objects (DTO's), also known as Value Objects (VO's). This results in an anemic domain model as the business objects have no logic of their own except accessor methods. All logic is done by our managers in the business layer, which results in a more procedural programming style. It's not good object oriented design, but maybe that's not a problem? (After all object orientation isn't the only programming paradigm which has delivered results.)
Using EJB and Java EE introduces a bit of complexity. And we can't use purely Tomcat (adding an EJB micro-container isn't purely Tomcat).
There are lots of issues with using Servlet's + JPA. Use Google for more information about these issues.
As the transactions are closed when exiting the business layer we can't load any information from JPA entities which is configured to be loaded from the database when it's needed (using fetch=FetchType.LAZY) from inside the presentation layer. It will trigger an exception. Before returning an entity containing these kinds of fields we have to be sure to call the relevant getter's. Another option is to use Java Persistence Query Language (JPQL) and do a FETCH JOIN. However both of these options are a little bit cumbersome.
Ok I'll do a (shorter) one:
Frontend : Tapestry (3 for older projects, 5 for newer projects)
Business layer: Spring
DAO's : Ibatis
Database : Oracle
We use Sping transaction support, and start transactions upon entering the service layer, propagating down to the DAO call's. The Service layer has the most bussines model knowledge, and the DAO's do relatively simple CRUD work.
Some more complicated query stuff is handled by more complicated queries in the backend for performance reasons.
Advantages of using Spring in our case is that we can have country/language dependant instances, which are behind a Spring Proxy class. Based on the user in the session, the correct country/language implementation is used when doing a call.
Transaction management is nearly transparent, rollback on runtime exceptions. We use unchecked exceptions as much as possible. We used to do checked exceptions, but with the introduction of Spring I see the benefits of unchecked exceptions, only handling exceptions when you can. It avoids a lot of boilerplate "catch/rethrow" or "throws" stuff.
Sorry it's shorter than your post, hope you find this interesting...
Ideal Java Based Web Development Technologies Today.
Web Layer :
HTML+CSS+Ajax+JQuery
RESTFul Web Controller/Action/Request Processing Layer :
Play Framework
Business Logic/Service Layer:
Use Pure Java Code as long as possible. One can do fusion of web services here.
XML/JSon Data Transformation Layer :
XMLTool(Search On Google Code),JSoup,Google GSon,XStream,JOOX (Search On Google Code)
Persistence Layer :
CRUD : JPA or SienaProject or QueryDSL /
Complex Queries : JOOQ,QueryDSL
Here's my 5 cents
Presentation
Android, Angular.JS WebClient, OAUTHv2
API
REST, Jersey (JAX-RS), Jackson (JSON de-/serialisation), DTO-objects (different from business logic models)
Business Logic
Spring for DI and Event handling. DDD-ish approach of model objects. Longer running jobs are offloaded with SQS in worker-modules.
DAO
Repository model with Spring JDBC-templates to store Entities.
Redis (JEDIS) for Leaderboards, using Ordered Lists.
Memcache for Token Store.
Database
MySQL, Memcached, Redis
What we have followed in our project is :
Front end Technology
AngularJS
HTML5
css3
Javascript
Bootstrap 3
API
REST
JERSEY (JAX-RS)
REST ASSURED
SPRING BOOT
Jackson
spring security
Business Logic
SPRING DATA
SPRING data MongoDB
Data base
MongoDB
Server (For caching)
redis
We are still using the usual Struts-Spring-Hibernate stack.
For future apps, we are looking into Spring Web Flow + Spring MVC + Hibernate or
Spring + Hibernate + Web Services with Flex front end.
A distinct characteristic of our architecture is modularization. We have a number of modules, some starting with 3 to max 30 tables in the database. Most of modules consist of business and web project. Business project holds business and persistence logic while web holds presentation logic.
On logical level, there are three layers: Business, Persistence and Presentation.
Dependencies:
Presentation depends on Business and Persistence.
Persistence depends on Business.
Business does not depend on other layers.
Most of business projects have three types of interfaces (note: not GUI, it is a programatic java interface layer).
Interface that presentation is using as a client
Interface that other modules are using when they are the client of the module.
Interface that can be used for administrative purposes of the module.
Often, 1 extends 2.
This way, it is easy to replace one implementation of module with another. This helps us adopt to different clients and integrate more easily. Some clients will buy only certain modules and we need to integrate functionality they already have. Since interface and implementation layer are separated, it is easy to roll out ad-hock module implementation for that specific client without affecting dependant modules. And Spring Framework makes it easy to inject different implementation.
Our business layer is based on POJOs. One tendency I am observing is that these POJOs resemble DTOs. We suffer from anaemic domain model. I am not quite sure why is this happening but it can be due to simplicity of problem domain of many of our modules, most of the work is CRUD or due to developers preferring to place logic somewhere else.
Here is one more web architecture I have worked on:
One major requirement was the application should support mobiles/other
devices. The application should also be extensible or flexible to
changes in technology choices.
Presentation Tier:
JSP/JQuery (Client-side MVC)
Native Android
Native iPhone
Mobile web (HTML5/CSS3/Responsive design)
Spring REST Controllers (Can change to JAX-RS)
Business Service Tier:
Spring #Service (Can change to Stateless EJB)
Data Access Tier:
Spring #Repository (Can change to Stateless EJB)
Resource Tier:
Hibernate(JPA) entities (Can change to any ORM)
You can find more information on the book which follows this architecture here.
IMHO, most of us have a common denominator. Atleast in the back-end, we have some form of IOC/DI container and a persistence framework. Personally I use Guice and Mybatis for this. The differences are in how we implement the view/UI/presentation layer. There are 2 major options here (may be more) .. Action based (URLs mapped to controllers) and component based. Currently am using component based presentation layer (using wicket). It perfectly mimics a desktop environment where I use components and events as opposed to URLs and controllers. Am currently looking for a reason why I should migrate to this URL-controller kind of architecture (that's how I ended up on this page). Why the hype about RESTful and Stateless architectures.
To answer this question in short: I write stateful web applications using a component oriented framework on top of Guice IOC container and put data in relational database using Mybatis.
A bit different, and I would claim more modular java architecture here. We have:
Spring WS/Rest/JSP front end
Spring MVC for business service logic, containing presentation layer logic as well as Spring transactions
Component service communication interface, looked up through EJB by business services. EJBs set their own transaction boundaries that are able to join Spring transactions.
Component service implementations, again Spring components
Integration layer, MyBatis for database integrations, Spring WS for web service integrations, other integration techonologies for other services
Mainframes, databases, other services at other servers...
In addition to the above, we have the shared library modules which is common functionality provider for all srevices.
Use of different layers allows us full decoupling and the modularity we need. We are also able to fully utilize the power of Java EE as well as Spring. Nothing prevents us from using JSF, for example, for the front end if needed.
Compared to example architecture by OP, I think this can be described as having four main layers instead of three, albeit with a twist.
I've worked on projects that use that rigid manager pattern. Historically, I was a huge proponent of the rigid hierarchy where everything fit into a neat box. As I progress in my career I find it to be forced in a lot of cases. I believe that adopting a more agile mindset towards application design leads to a better product. What I mean by this creating a set of classes that solve the problem at hand. Rather than saying "Did you build a manager for this and that?"
The current project I'm working on is a web app with a combination of Spring MVC and RestEasy JSON/Ajax calls. On the server side embedded in our controllers is a sensible facade based data tier with JPA/Hibernate for direct Database access, some EJB access, and some SOAP based web service calls. Tying all this together is some custom java controller code that determines what to serialize as JSON and return to the client.
We spend almost no time attempting to create some unified pattern instead opting to adopt the "Worse is Better" idea of the Unix Design Philosophy. Being that its much better to color outside the lines and build something sensible, quickly than it is to build something that adheres to a bunch of strict design mandates.
The components in Web Application Architecture include :
1 : Browser : Client interaction
HTML
JavaScript
Stylesheet
2 : Internet
3 : Webserver
CSS
Image
Pages(Java render )
4 : Application Server
App Webapp (Java interaction)
Others WebApps
5 : Database Server
Oracle, SQL, MySQL
6 : Data