We Keep Coding

#Transactional annotation at service layer does not rollback, jdbcTemplate [duplicate]

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.

Starting a CDI conversation and injecting #ConversationScoped bean into stateless session bean

Similar questions have been asked, but don't quite address what I'm trying to do. We have an older Seam 2.x-based application with a batch job framework that we are converting to CDI. The job framework uses the Seam Contexts object to initiate a conversation. The job framework also loads a job-specific data holder (basically a Map) that can then be accessed, via the Seam Contexts object, by any service down the chain, including from SLSBs. Some of these services can update the Map, so that job state can change and be detected from record to record.
It looks like in CDI, the job will #Inject a CDI Conversation object, and manually begin/end the conversation. We would also define a new ConversationScoped bean that holds the Map (MapBean). What's not clear to me are two things:
First, the job needs to also #Inject the MapBean so that it can be loaded with job-specific data before the Conversation.begin() method is called. Would the container know to pass this instance to services down the call chain?
Related to that, according to this question Is it possible to #Inject a #RequestScoped bean into a #Stateless EJB? it should be possible to inject a ConservationScoped bean into a SLSB, but it seems a bit magical. If the SLSB is used by a different process (job, UI call, etc), does it get separate instance for each call?
Edits for clarification and a simplified class structure:
MapBean would need to be a ConversationScoped object, containing data for a specific instance/run of a job.
#ConversationScoped
public class MapBean implements Serializable {
private Map<String, Object> data;
// accessors
public Object getData(String key) {
return data.get(key);
}
public void setData(String key, Object value) {
data.put(key, value);
}
}
The job would be ConversationScoped:
#ConversationScoped
public class BatchJob {
#Inject private MapBean mapBean;
#Inject private Conversation conversation;
#Inject private JobProcessingBean jobProcessingBean;
public void runJob() {
try {
conversation.begin();
mapBean.setData("key", "value"); // is this MapBean instance now bound to the conversation?
jobProcessingBean.doWork();
} catch (Exception e) {
// catch something
} finally {
conversation.end();
}
}
}
The job might call a SLSB, and the current conversation-scoped instance of MapBean needs to be available:
#Stateless
public class JobProcessingBean {
#Inject private MapBean mapBean;
public void doWork() {
// when this is called, is "mapBean" the current conversation instance?
Object value = mapBean.getData("key");
}
}
Our job and SLSB framework is quite complex, the SLSB can call numerous other services or locally instantiated business logic classes, and each of these would need access to the conversation-scoped MapBean.

First, the job needs to also #Inject the MapBean so that it can be loaded with job-specific data before the Conversation.begin() method is called. Would the container know to pass this instance to services down the call chain?
Yes, since MapBean is #ConversationScoped it is tied to the call chain for the duration starting from conversation.begin() until conversation.end(). You can think of #ConversationScoped (and #RequestScoped and #SessionScoped) as instances in ThreadLocal - while there exists an instance of them for every thread, each instance is tied to that single thread.
Related to that, according to this question Is it possible to #Inject a #RequestScoped bean into a #Stateless EJB? it should be possible to inject a #ConservationScoped bean into a SLSB, but it seems a bit magical. If the SLSB is used by a different process (job, UI call, etc), does it get separate instance for each call?
It's not as magical as you think if you see that this pattern is the same as the one I explained above. The SLSB indeed gets a separate instance, but not just any instance, the one which belongs to the scope from which the SLSB was called.
In addition to the link you posted, see also this answer.
Iv'e tested a similar code to what you posted and it works as expected - the MapBean is the same one injected throughout the call. Just be careful with 2 things:
BatchJob is also #ConversationScoped but does not implement Serializable, which will not allow the bean to passivate.
data is not initialized, so you will get an NPE in runJob().

Without any code samples, I'll have to do some guessing, so let's see if I got you right.
Would the container know to pass this instance to services down the call chain?
If you mean to use the same instance elsewhere in the call, then this can be easily achieved by making the MapBean an #ApplicationScoped bean (or, alternatively, and EJB #Singleton).
it should be possible to inject a ConservationScoped bean into a SLSB, but it seems a bit magical.
Here I suppose that the reason why it seems magical is that SLSB is in terms of CDI a #Dependent bean. And as you probably know, CDI always creates new instance for dependent bean injection point. E.g. yes, you get a different SLS/Dependent bean instance for each call.
Perhaps some other scope would fit you better here? Like #RequestScoped or #SessionScoped? Hard to tell without more details.

How to create a object that need dynamic parameter

I always have a question from the 1st day when I used spring. If a class has a constructor that needs two parameters, but these 2 parameters are not fixed, they are generated according to input request, every time they are different, but I need spring container to manage the class's instance, how to achieve this in spring?
For example
Class A{
A(int x,int y){//omit}
}
but x, and y are not fixed,we need to calculate x and y by our program, then we can create instance for A, in ordinary java code,like below
int x=calculate(request);
int y=calculate(request);
A a=new A(x,y);
But how to make spring manages the class A's instance creation?
Additional information: Why I need Class A is managed by spring, because A depends on some other classes which are managed by spring.

The most straightforward way to do it is to use ApplicationContext.getBean(String name, Object... args) - it can create a prototype-scoped bean passing the given arguments to its constructor. Obviosly it's not a good idea to use ApplicationContext directly in any bean that uses A.
A more elegant approach is to hide the creation of A behind a factory. That factory can use the previous approach internally, or it can obtain an instance of a bean in a regular way (Provider<A>, etc) and then call a non-public initialization method to pass that parameters (instead of passing parameters through using constructor).
Yet another apporach is to use #Configurable and load-time weaving that allows Spring to initialize objects created with new. Though it requires some extra configuration of runtime environment.

they are generated according to input request, every time they are different, but I need spring container to manage the class's instance, how to achieve this in spring?
You don't. Classes that you need to instantiate in response to user input are not meant to be managed by Spring.
Just because you are using Spring to manage some beans, does not mean that all beans/classes should be managed by Spring.

You want your Spring Bean to be defined as a prototype instead of a singleton. That way, on every new request your Spring context will create a new instance of the bean.
In Java config, it will look something like this:
#Scope("prototype") #Bean public MyBean myBean() { ... }
In xml:
<bean id="myBean" class="whatever.MyBean" scope="prototype"> ...
There are also scopes that can be tied to HTTP sessions. See:
http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.0.0.M3/reference/html/ch04s04.html
And, as others pointed out, you will have to define a factory method for your bean:
See: Spring and passing parameters to factory-method in runtime

I'd assume that int is replaceable by some Object instance.One way to achieve this is to use Spring's FactoryBean feature to customize the initialization of your bean:
class AFactory implements o.s.b.f.FactoryBean {
private SomeObject firstParam;
private OtherObject secondParam;
public Object getObject() {
return new A(firstParam, secondParam);
}
public Class getObjectType() {
return A.class;
}
public boolean isSingleton() {
return false;
// i.e. every time #getObject() is called a new instance is created === prototype scope
}
public void setFirstParam(SomeObject firstParam){}
public void setSecondParam(OtherObject secondParam){}
}
Note that if SomeObject and OtherObject can be actually other FactorBeans that are factories for the dependencies of A, then every time there is a call to AFactory#getObject(), you'd actually receive a new instance of A that uses fresh instances of its required dependencies.

You could try to use this method in BeanFactory class (extended by ApplicationContext)
Object getBean(String name, Object... args)throws BeansException;
in your case:
context.getBean("A", x, y);
where "A" is the bean name for class A.

Maybe you have to change the constructor to:
Class A{
A(Request request){ this.x=calculate(request); ....}
}

How can a Spring bean detect if it itself has been wrapped in an AOP proxy?

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.

EJB3 correlation ID

Now my colleagues work on logging subsystem and they want to bind separate operations, that was initiated from some business method. For example, if method from bean A calls to some method in bean B and then in bean C it will be great to know than business methods in bean B and bean C does some staff for method from bean A. Especially it will be great to know that methods from B and C done some unit of work for concrete call of bean A.
So, the question is how to tie this units of work into something total? Obviously, it is not beautiful to use method arguments for binding!
And also I think that it is time to ask another question, that is close enough to previous one. What if I want to propagate some context information from bean A to another beans, that are called from A? Something like security credentials and security principal? What can I do?
May be questions that I asked is some kind of bad practice?

Looks like a good use case for mdc, available in both Logback and Log4J. Essentially you are attaching some custom value to a thread and all logging messages comming from that thread can attach that value to the message.
I think the best way to implement this in EJB will be an interceptor:
public class MdcInterceptor {
#AroundInvoke
public Object addMdcValue(InvocationContext context) throws Exception {
MDC.put("cid", RandomStringUtils.randomAlphanumeric(16));
try {
return context.proceed();
} finaly {
MDC.remove("cid");
}
}
}
Now all you have to do is add:
%X{user}
to your logging pattern (logback.xml or log4j.xml).
See also
Logging user activity in web app

For general purpose context information you can use TransactionSynchronizationRegistry. It could look something like this:
#Stateless
public class MyBean {
#Resource
TransactionSynchronizationRegistry registry;
#AroundInvoke
public Object setEntryName(InvocationContext ic) throws Exception {
registry.putResource(NAME, "MyBean");
return ic.proceed();
}
}
#Stateless
public class MyBean2 {
#Resource
TransactionSynchronizationRegistry registry;
public void doJob() {
String entryName = (String)registry.getResource(NAME);
...
}
}
I believe it is usually implemented using ThreadLocal variables as normally each transaction maps to a sigle thread in application servers. So if TransactionSynchronizationRegistry is not implemented in your AS (like e.g. in JBoss 4.2.3) or you need lower level tool, you could use ThreadLocal variables directly.
BTW I guess that MDC utilities use the same thing under the covers.