I am new to Spring AOP.
Using annotation based Spring configuration:
#Configuration
#EnableAspectJAutoProxy(proxyTargetClass=true)
#ComponentScan({"sk.lkrnac"})
Aspect:
#Aspect
#Component
public class TestAspect {
#Before("execution(* *(..))")
public void logJoinPoint(JoinPoint joinPoint){
....
}
}
Spring compoment:
package sk.lkrnac.testaop;
#Component
public class TestComponent{
#PostConstruct
public void init(){
testMethod();
}
public void testMethod() {
return;
}
}
How can I intercept all public methods that are called by Spring framework itself? (e.g. TestComponent.init() during creation of the TestComponent instance by Spring)
Currently I am able to intercept only TestComponent.testMethod() by invoking:
TestComponent testComponent = springContext.getBean(TestComponent.class);
testComponent.testMethod();
This is a common issue you run into with Spring AOP. Spring accomplishes AOP by proxying advised classes. In your case, your TestComponent instances will be wrapped in a run-time proxy class that provides the "hooks" for any aspect advice to be applied. This works very well when methods are called from outside the class, but as you have discovered it doesn't work on internal calls. The reason is that internal calls will not pass the proxy barrier, thus will not trigger the aspect.
There are primarily two ways around this. One is to fetch an instance of the (proxied) bean from the context. This is what you have already tried with success.
The other way is to use something called load-time weaving. When using this, AOP advices are added to a class ("weaved" into it) by a custom class-loader by injecting byte-code into the class definition. The Spring documentation has more on this.
There is a third way, which is called "compile time weaving". In this scenario, your AOP advices are statically weaved into each advised class when you compile it.
You can't intercept init() without any explicit means, please see the SpringSource Jira for details.
You can also try to call inner testMethod() from init() by self via proxy object like Don explained in https://stackoverflow.com/a/5786362/6786382.
Related
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.
I was reading some articles about Spring AOP and encountered this:
AOP proxy: the object created by AOP to implement the aspect
contracts. In Spring, proxy objects can be JDK dynamic proxies or
CGLIB proxies. By default, the proxy objects will be JDK dynamic
proxies, and the object being proxied must implement an interface,
that will also be implemented by the proxy object. But a library like
CGLIB can be used to create proxies by subclassing too, so an
interface is not needed.
Could you look at the following structure and imagine that we want to advise bar() method.
public interface Foo {
void foo();
}
public class FooImpl implements Foo {
#Override
public void foo() {
System.out.println("");
}
public void bar() {
System.out.println("");
}
}
Does it mean that in this case CGLIB proxy will be used?
Since JDK dynamic proxy isn't able to implement any interface in order to override bar() method.
Spring will only use CGLIB if you tell it to. This is enabled (for annotation based configurations) by setting the proxyTargetClass element of #EnableAspectJAutoProxy to true.
#EnableAspectJAutoProxy(proxyTargetClass = true)
Consider this minimal example (assuming your FooImpl is annotated with #Component)
#Aspect
#Component
class FooAspect {
#Before("execution(public void bar())")
public void method() {
System.out.println("before");
}
}
#Configuration
#EnableAspectJAutoProxy
#ComponentScan
public class Example {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
AnnotationConfigApplicationContext ctx = new AnnotationConfigApplicationContext(Example.class);
FooImpl f = ctx.getBean(FooImpl.class); // throw exception here
f.bar();
}
}
By default, proxyTargetClass is false. In this case, Spring will not use CGLIB. Because of the #Before advice in the #Aspect class, Spring will decide that it needs to proxy the FooImpl with a JDK proxy. Unfortunately, because of this proxying behavior, the bean actually stored in the context will be of a dynamic JDK Proxy type (also a subtype of the Foo interface) and therefore trying to get the bean with FooImpl.class will fail.
Even if you tried to retrieve it as a Foo, you wouldn't be able to invoke a bar() method since the proxy object isn't a FooImpl.
If you enable the proxyTargetClass, the code above works as intended, a CGLIB proxy is created, and the #Before advice is invoked.
See AOP Proxies in the Spring documentation:
Spring AOP defaults to using standard JDK dynamic proxies for AOP proxies. This enables any interface (or set of interfaces) to be proxied.
Spring AOP can also use CGLIB proxies. This is necessary to proxy classes rather than interfaces. By default, CGLIB is used if a business object does not implement an interface.
Spring AOP defaults to using standard JDK dynamic proxies for AOP proxies. This enables any interface (or set of interfaces) to be proxied.
Spring AOP can also use CGLIB proxies. This is necessary to proxy classes rather than interfaces. CGLIB is used by default if a business object does not implement an interface. As it is good practice to program to interfaces rather than classes; business classes normally will implement one or more business interfaces. It is possible to force the use of CGLIB, in those (hopefully rare) cases where you need to advise a method that is not declared on an interface, or where you need to pass a proxied object to a method as a concrete type.
It is important to grasp the fact that Spring AOP is proxy-based. See Understanding AOP proxies for a thorough examination of exactly what this implementation detail actually means.
https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/core.html#aop-introduction
AOP can pointcut like #Controller or #Service.
But it doesn't work well on Class without spring's annotation.
package com.erp.module;
#Slf4j
public class SalesOrderModule {
public void cancel(){
log.info("test");
}
public static SalesOrderModule init(int type) {
SalesOrderModule salesOrderModule = new SalesOrderModule(salesOrder);
*****
return salesOrderModule;
My Aspect.java like below
#Aspect
#Component
#Slf4j
public class WebLogAspect {
#Pointcut("execution(public * com.erp.controller.*.*(..)) || execution(public * com.erp.module.*.*(..))")
public void logPointCut() {
}
I invoke cancel like below:
SalesOrderModule so = SalesOrderModule.init(3);
so.cancel();
I know this problem is relative to proxy. But how can I
Spring Docs says:
Thus, for example, the Spring Framework’s AOP functionality is normally used in conjunction with the Spring IoC container. Aspects are configured using normal bean definition syntax (although this allows powerful "autoproxying" capabilities): this is a crucial difference from other AOP implementations. There are some things you cannot do easily or efficiently with Spring AOP, such as advise very fine-grained objects (such as domain objects typically): AspectJ is the best choice in such cases. However, our experience is that Spring AOP provides an excellent solution to most problems in enterprise Java applications that are amenable to AOP.
So if you need to intercept non-spring managed code, you need to use AspectJ instead of Spring AOP. TBH, I didn't need that so far.
Is it possible to use #DeclareMixin with Spring AOP? Or do they only support #DeclareParents?
I want to write an aspect that mixes in the java.beans.PropertyChangeSupport into a java bean:
public class PropertyChangeSupportWithInterface extends PropertyChangeSupport
implements IObservableBean {
public PropertyChangeSupportWithInterface(Object sourceBean) {
super(sourceBean);
}
}
(IObservableBean simply contains all public methods from the PropertyChangeSupport)
#Aspect
#Named
public class ObservableAspect{
#DeclareMixin("#ObservableBean *")
public static IObservableBean createDelegate(Object object) {
return new PropertyChangeSupportWithInterface(object);
}
}
It seems that this aspect is never used, which makes me think that the #DeclareMixin is not supported by the runtime weaving done by Spring AOP.
Is there any way to get this working with Spring AOP?
You can find a (not) running example here (Maven multi module project):
https://github.com/BernhardBln/SpringAOPObservableBean
See the (only) test case in the springaop-observable-bean-aspect submodule.
No, it's not supported by Spring AOP out the box. I see two options:
Create a DeclareMixinIntroductionInterceptor for Spring AOP.
Switch to Aspectj
I think that PropertyChange interface fits better in Aspectj because usually you will create a lot of proxies for prototype beans and them could be created easily out of the framework, by an ORM for example.
Edit
However I'm interested in this feature too and I already done some work for use it:
A DelegateFactoryIntroductionInterceptor to support creating delegates from the aspect instance.
A DeclareMixinAdvisor to join the inteceptor with the type pattern.
A DeclareMixinAspectJAdvisorFactory to support the DeclareMixin annotation.
To use it you only need to declare a bean of type DeclareMixinAutoProxyCreatorConfigurer
for configuring the AnnotationAwareAspectJAutoProxyCreator with the AdvisorFactory above.
I'm just testing, but seem that work fine.
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.