We Keep Coding

How do Annotations works internally in Java or any other programming language?

I having hard time understanding importance and benefits of Annotations and so have two questions regarding them:
What are the benefits of Annotations as compared to XML Configuration?
How do Annotations work internally?
Is it fair enough to say that annotation binds application tightly whereas with XML Configuration Application is loosely coupled?
Would appreciate pros and cons comparison with XML Configuration with example so that it would be much more helpful for me to understand.
Regards.

For your 1st question,
Xml configuration versus Annotation based configuration
Personally, I feel, there are two criteria's
Can annotations simplify the metadata ?
If annotations do not reduce the amount of metadata that you have to provide (in most cases they do), then you shouldn’t use annotation.
Can changes to the metadata break behavior in your application?
If not, then you can feel comfortable applying the change while the system is running in production. External config files are the best place for the metadata in this case because you don’t want to have to recompile your code to make the change.
For your 2nd question,
How Do Annotations Work?
Important Links :
What are annotations and how do they actually work for frameworks like Spring?

Both annotations and XML descriptors are used to describe some metadata on top of regular code. The primary difference is that in case of annotations you only have to deal with one file which includes code and metadata. It is also a big advantage of annotations as it reduces number of moving parts and increases productivity.
On the other hand, the drawback of annotations is that they bind together the code and the system or framework that operates using those annotations. That makes it harder to separate those in future.
For example, if you use Hibernate Annotations, you bind your model objects with Hibernate. If you choose to switch to different framework, you will have to rip out Hibernate annotations from the code.
But practically, it's not that likely that you will be changing frameworks that often. There are usually many other reasons why changing framework on existing code base may be hard. So often annotations is a good choice.
As to how they work, annotations are a part of the language and are processed by compiler and other tools and, depending on retention, can be included in produced bytecode for use at runtime. Ultimately, it's up to consumer to decide on how to use annotations.

To answer the first question, IMO the greatest benefit is the potential for compiler integration. I can write an annotation processor that can validate some semantics related to the application of the annotation. That kind of compile-time checking is not possible (or would at least be way more difficult) if the same information was instead part of an XML document.
To answer the second question, annotations don't really "work" internally, per se, in the sense that they don't have any inherent execution semantics. They are source level entities that may or may not be retained in the classfile. The can be processed during compilation of the source, and if they were retained in the classfile, can be accessed via reflection.

Best practices when using Spring 3 annotations

I'm looking for some best practices when using Spring 3 annotations.
I'm currently moving to Spring 3 and from what I've read so far I see a lot of accent placed on using annotations and moving away from XML configuration.
Actually what is recommended is a mix of both styles, with annotations covering things that won't change often or from one run to the next (e.g. a #Controller will remain like that for the life time of the application), while the things that change and must be configurable go into XML (e.g. a mail smtp address, endpoints for web services that your application talks to etc).
My question is what should go into annotations and to what extent?
At which point annotations make things harder instead of easier? Is the technology (Spring 3) fully adopted as to be able to make such statements or does it take some more time for people to gain experience with it and then reflect on the issue?

It is always difficult to get real advanced information.
The easy tutorial with "look on my blog, I copied the hello word tutorial from Spring Source website... Now you can put fancy annotations everywhere, it the solution of all of our problems including cancer and starvation." is not really usefull.
If you remember right spring core had several purposes, among them:
to be non intrusive
to change any
implementation/configuration of a
bean at any time
to give a centralized and controlled
place to put your configuration
Anotation fail for all theses needs:
They introduce coupling with spring
(you can use standard anotation only
but as soon as you have at least one
spring anotation this is no longer
true)
You need to modify source code and
recompile to change bean
implementation or configuration
Annotations are everywhere in your
code. It can be difficult to find
what bean will be really used just by
reading the code or XML configuration
file.
In fact we have shifted our focus:
We realized that we almost never
provide several implementations of
our services.
We realised that being dependant of
an API is not that bad.
We realized that we use spring not only
for real dependancy injection
anymore, but mainly to increase
productivity and reduce java code
verbosity.
So I would use anotations when it make sence. When it is purerly to remove boilerplate code, verbosity. I would take care of using the XML configuration file for thing that you want to make configurable, even if it is only to provide a stub implementation of the service in unit tests.

I use #Value for properties that are configured in external properties file via PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer, as kunal noted.
There is no strict line for when to use xml, but I use xml:
when the bean is not a class I control
when the object is related to the infrastructure or configuration rather than to the business logic.
when the class has some primitive properties that I would like configurable, but not necessarily via externalized configurations.
In response to your comment: spring is very widely adopted, but "good" and "bad" are very subjective. Even my lines are not universal truths. XML, annotations and programmatic configuration all exists for a purpose, and each developer / company have their preferences.
As I said - there is no strict line, and no universal good practice for annotations.

Annotations are surely the way by which "newer" programming in java will continue. I use annotations for various uses...like #Scope for scope of bean, #Required for making dependency necessary, #Aspect for configuring advices,#Autowired for constructor injection using annotations. Since spring 2.5, annotation support has been good.
See here for spring tutorial, where annotation based issue are covered here.

I think that two cases that the usage of annotations could cause some problems. Firstly, if you want to write complex named queries (JPA) in your entities. I saw some entity code samples and asked myself whether the code is really java code or not. To many metadata in program code will reduce the readability of it which kills clean code principles.
Second problem is portability between JVM versions. Annotation is a feature 1.5+. If your software should support earlier JVM versions, then you may not use these.
Anyway, you can enjoy with annotations everytime without having any doubt and spare your time not changing IDE tabs to check XMLs if the property is still there or not, or entered correct etc.
For very small projects you could still XML version if you haven't too many stuff to be declared in spring. But, if you are in a huge project, the things could be very troublesome if you had 10 xml configs.

This will perhaps not help you much but at work they don't want to use autowiring because it needs a classpath scan (but that can be package-defined i think). So it increases the startup time of the application according to the size of the project.

Is there a simple framework allowing for Dependency Injection in a stand alone program?

We basically need to be able to adjust behaviour at start-up time, by providing desired classes to be produced by various factories inside our application (to avoid the hard binding of the "new" operator).
I am aware that this is provided by several large frameworks, but I was looking for something easily used by a stand-alone Java application without being gigantic.
Any suggestions?
Edit: It is my experience that frameworks tend to grow big as part of maturing (and complex too). I need this to be retrofittable to a legacy application as part of major refactoring (technical debt), so simplicity is essential of the used libraries. I do not mind having to do a bit of coding in our application, but it must be very visible what is going on. AOP has a tendency for moving stuff out of the way, and that may make the application harder to maintain.
Edit: We have now reached the point where we actually need to make a decision. The application will probably live for decades so we need to make a reversible decision with a framework that will be maintained for hopefully as long. I really like the static type check available with Guice, but not that the annotations bind explicitly to Guice instead of being external like in Spring. I also like that code appears to be more concise when using Guice as opposed to Spring. We need something that is robust and helpful. We do not need more than just DI at the moment. Is there a use case that definitive says go for one of these?
Edit 2011-07-27: The final decision was to use the JSR-330 API in code, and choose on a per-project basis if to use Spring, Guice or Weld. For stand-alone applications Guice has worked well so far as the JSR-330 implementation.

You can always use Spring Framework 2.5. It is a big one, but if you planning to use only DI you can use spring-core and spring-beans modules, which are pretty small (ca. 500KB and 300KB).
There is also Google Guice 2.0 which comes with a package with only basic stuff (no AOP) and it's 430KB.

Have you looked at the Google Guice framework? It's pretty lightweight and annotation-based, avoiding XML configuration files
There's also Pico- and Nano-container (from codehaus) which are quite lightweight although the last time I looked (admittedly a few years ago) the documentation was lacking.
I must say that I agree with others about what I assume is your presumption that Spring is massive and confusing. It's really a very simple IoC container and to be recommended.

There are a couple I know of you might find useful:
PicoContainer
Plexus (used in Maven)
I've found Plexus very useful in standalone apps as it has optional utility components for CLI interaction.

By "gigantic" I'm going to assume you're referring to Spring, but that's unfair, since you can cherry-pick the bits of Spring you want to use. If all you need is the IoC container, just use the appropriate JAR files and the appropriate bit of the API, and ignore the rest of it.

Most answers so far seem to be concerned with the size of the jar files to be added.
However I think the more important question is the impact on the project: How many lines of code must be added/changed in order to use the framework?
Even the "big" spring framework is actually very easy to use:
You basically need:
a xml file that describes your factories.
one line of code to initialize the container by loading the xml file
The nice thing is that spring is non-intrusive. So you do not have to implement specific interfaces or add any specific annotations or imports to your classes.
At best the single spot where you actually initialize the Spring container is the only
place in your application that has an actual dependency to spring classes.

I would strongly suggest to take a look at Spring ME. Although originally meant to be a way to use Spring on Java ME applications, it also works fine for standalone applications.
True, it doesn't give you all of the bells and whistles that Spring (Full) has to offer, but then again, Full Spring is much much more than a simple dependency injection framework.
On the plus side: it's based on a (compliant) subset of Spring's configuration files, and the footprint of the runtime is 0%. In fact, there isn't any. Spring ME will take your application context, and turn it into a class that has no dependencies on classes other than your own.

What's wrong with Spring?
These days it's packaged pretty well so you wouldn't need to take the whole kit and caboodle.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of the annotation based injection frameworks. This is because the annotations are bound to the class rather than the instance, the later being a pre-requisite, imho, for DI. This means every instance of a given class gets the same object(s) injected, which seems to defeat the point.
Also consider that DI doesn't even need a framework, what's wrong with your main method wiring together the application?

If you want something maximally simple and appropriate, then write some code that does what you want done. Presumably this involves wiring together factories based partly on fixed logic, and partly on run-time settings.
This has the advantage that the set of possible run-time configurations is known, and so documentable and testable.
It has the disadvantage that an deploying an unanticipated logic change inherently takes an extra second or so of compile time, and (more significantly) can't be sneaked into production without full testing by disguising it as 'just a configuration change'.

About a year ago I asked myself a question very like this. So I spend a few hours reading the Spring and Guice documentation. After about an hour with Spring I was left feeling that I could get a basic web app going, but had no idea how to use it in a stand alone application. After an hour with the Guice document everything had clicked and I could see just how I to do what I wanted to get done.
Now on to recommending Guice? Well no. What does your team already know? If someone already knows say Spring leaver that knowledge and have them spread it about. Like wise with Guice or Pico.

If you want something really light weight you might want to have a look at fuse it's fairly extendable so might be what you're looking for.
cheers
N

Why are people continuing to use xml mapping files instead of annotations? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've observed the strange fact (based on the questions in the hibernate tag) that people are still actively using xml files instead of annotations to specify their ORM (Hibernate/JPA) mappings.
There are a few cases, where this is necessary:
you are using classes that are provided, and you want to map them.
you are writing an API, whose domain classes can be used without a JPA provider, so you don't want to force a JPA/Hibernate dependency.
But these are not common cases, I think.
My assumptions are:
people are used to xml files and don't feel comfortable / don't want to bother learning to use the annotation approach.
Java pre-1.5 is forced upon the project and there is nothing to do about it
people don't know that annotations are a full-featured replacement of xml mapping.
legacy systems are supported and hence changing the approach is considered risky
people fear that mixing annotations (meta-information) with their classes is wrong.
Any other possible explanations?

The domain layer and the persistence layer are considered by some to be separate concerns. Using the pure XML approach keeps the two layers as loosely coupled as possible; using annotations couples the two layers more tightly as you have persistence-related code embedded in the domain code.

Lack of overview of what's been mapped. You need to dig in the source code.

people don't know that annotations are
a full-featured replacement of xml
mapping.
Ah, but they're not. Three cases off the top of my head (there are probably more) you can't do (well) with annotations:
Use formula as part of association key (admittedly, rather esoteric).
Join-via-subselect - #Loader is not an adequate replacement. Not too common but quite useful. Envers provides a viable alternate approach.
Losing column order for schema generation. This one's an absolute killer. I understand why it's done this way, but it still annoys me to no end.
Don't get me wrong, though - annotations are great; doubly so when they're coupled with Validator (though, again, #3 above kills the buzz on this one). They also provide certain aspects of functionality that XML mappings do not.

Using XML to complement the annotations, where environment or system specific configuration is needed.

Some information is carried nicely in annotations, such as the cardinality of relationships between entities. These annotations provide more detail about the model itself, rather than how the model relates to something else.
However, bindings, whether to a persistence store or XML or anything else, are extrinsic to the model. They change depending on the context in which the model is used. Including them in the model is as bad as using inline style definitions in HTML. I use external binding (usually—though not necessarily—XML) documents for the same reasons I reference an external CSS.

I initially found the annotation syntax very weird. It looks like line noise and mixes in with where I usually put comments. It's vastly better than dealing with the XML files though, because all of the changes are in one place, the model file. Perhaps one limitation of annotation is possible collision with other annotations, but I haven't seen that yet.
I think the real reason that it isn't used more is that it isn't really considered the default. You have to use an additional jar file. It should be part of core and the XML approach should be the optional one.

I've switched to annotations, but sometimes I miss the XML mappings, mainly because the documentation was so much more comprehensive, with examples of many scenarios. With annotations, I stick to pretty basic mappings (which is great if you control the data and object model), but I've done some very complex things in the XML that I don't know if I could replicate in the annotations.

So if you want to deploy your class to multiple datastores. And you want to annotate column definitions into it do you ? Different datastores have different conventions etc and using XML is the only sane place in that situation, being able to have one for MySQL, and one for Derby, and one for Oracle or whatever. You can still put the basic persistence/relation annotations in if you wish, but the schema-specific stuff would go into XML in that case.
--Andy (DataNucleus)

I have a new one : http://www.summerofnhibernate.com/
Very nice screencast series not yet covering annotations. I have written some apps with it to learn the basics, not for my job but out of curiosity, but never migrated to annotations yet. The series where suggested as still relevant on SO. I still will migrate to annotations if I have some more spare time but for the time being I could be one of the persons asking questions about it.

I worked on a project where the database would change very frequently and we have to regenerate the java files and configuration files each time it happens. Actually we do not use all the relationships and configurations generated by hibernate tool. So basically we use the tool and then modify/tweak them.
So when you want to modify/tweak the default configurations, it is easier to do in the XML file in comparison to doing it through annotations.

I feel that it makes the code much more readable if we donot use Annotations.Use of Annotations can really help if the configuration info changes frequently, but take the case of web.xml, how many times does the info in that change, so why use annotations for Servlets.

We continue to use XML because typically for deployed sites, getting a patch (binary code) approved for installation takes time that you may not have. Updates to ASCII files (e.g. xml files) are considered configuration changes and not patches...
t

Xml configuration versus Annotation based configuration [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
In a few large projects i have been working on lately it seems to become increasingly important to choose one or the other (XML or Annotation). As projects grow, consistency is very important for maintainability.
My questions are: what are the advantages of XML-based configuration over Annotation-based configuration and what are the advantages of Annotation-based configuration over XML-based configuration?

Annotations have their use, but they are not the one silver bullet to kill XML configuration. I recommend mixing the two!
For instance, if using Spring, it is entirely intuitive to use XML for the dependency injection portion of your application. This gets the code's dependencies away from the code which will be using it, by contrast, using some sort of annotation in the code that needs the dependencies makes the code aware of this automatic configuration.
However, instead of using XML for transactional management, marking a method as transactional with an annotation makes perfect sense, since this is information a programmer would probably wish to know. But that an interface is going to be injected as a SubtypeY instead of a SubtypeX should not be included in the class, because if now you wish to inject SubtypeX, you have to change your code, whereas you had an interface contract before anyways, so with XML, you would just need to change the XML mappings and it is fairly quick and painless to do so.
I haven't used JPA annotations, so I don't know how good they are, but I would argue that leaving the mapping of beans to the database in XML is also good, as the object shouldn't care where its information came from, it should just care what it can do with its information. But if you like JPA (I don't have any expirience with it), by all means, go for it.
In general:
If an annotation provides functionality and acts as a comment in and of itself, and doesn't tie the code down to some specific process in order to function normally without this annotation, then go for annotations. For example, a transactional method marked as being transactional does not kill its operating logic, and serves as a good code-level comment as well. Otherwise, this information is probably best expressed as XML, because although it will eventually affect how the code operates, it won't change the main functionality of the code, and hence doesn't belong in the source files.

There is a wider issue here, that of externalised vs inlined meta-data. If your object model is only ever going to persisted in one way, then inlined meta-data (i.e. annotations) are more compact and readable.
If, however, your object model was reused in different applications in such a way that each application wanted to persist the model in different ways, then externalising the meta-data (i.e. XML descriptors) becomes more appropriate.
Neither one is better, and so both are supported, although annotations are more fashionable. As a result, new hair-on-fire frameworks like JPA tend to put more emphasis on them. More mature APIs like native Hibernate offer both, because it's known that neither one is enough.

I always think about annotations as some kind of indicator of what a class is capable of, or how it interacts with others.
Spring XML configuration on the other hand to me is just that, configuration
For instance, information about the ip and port of a proxy, is definetly going into an XML file, it is the runtime configuration.
Using #Autowire,#Element to indicate the framework what to do with the class is good use of annotations.
Putting the URL into the #Webservice annotation is bad style.
But this is just my opinion.
The line between interaction and configuration is not always clear.

I've been using Spring for a few years now and the amount of XML that was required was definitely getting tedious. Between the new XML schemas and annotation support in Spring 2.5 I usually do these things:
Using "component-scan" to autoload classes which use #Repository, #Service or #Component. I usually give every bean a name and then wire them together using #Resource. I find that this plumbing doesn't change very often so annotations make sense.
Using the "aop" namespace for all AOP. This really works great. I still use it for transactions too because putting #Transactional all over the place is kind of a drag. You can create named pointcuts for methods on any service or repository and very quickly apply the advice.
I use LocalContainerEntityManagerFactoryBean along with HibernateJpaVendorAdapter to configure Hibernate. This lets Hibernate easily auto-discover #Entity classes on the classpath. Then I create a named SessionFactory bean using "factory-bean" and "factory-method" referring to the LCEMFB.

An important part in using an annotation-only approach is that the concept of a "bean name" more or less goes away (becomes insignificant).
The "bean names" in Spring form an additional level of abstraction over the implementing classes. With XML beans are defined and referenced relative to their bean name. With annotations they are referenced by their class/interface. (Although the bean name exists, you do not need to know it)
I strongly believe that getting rid of superfluous abstractions simplifies systems and improves productivity. For large projects I think the gains by getting rid of XML can be substantial.

It depends on what everything you want to configure, because there are some options that cannot be configured with anotations. If we see it from the side of annotations:
plus: annotations are less talky
minus: annotations are less visible
It's up to you what is more important...
In general I would recommend to choose one way and use it all over some closed part of product...
(with some exceptions: eg if you choose XML based configurations, it's ok to use #Autowire annotation. It's mixing, but this one helps both readability and maintainability)

I think that visibility is a big win with an XML based approach. I find that the XML isn't really that bad, given the various tools out there for navigating XML documents (i.e. Visual Studio + ReSharper's File Structure window).
You can certainly take a mixed approach, but that seems dangerous to me if only because, potentially, it would make it difficult for new developers on a project to figure out where different objects are configured or mapped.
I don't know; in the end XML Hell doesn't seem all that bad to me.

There are other aspect to compare like refactoring and other code changes. when using XML it takes serous effort to make refactoring because you have to take care of all the XML content. But it is easy when using Annotations.
My preferred way is the Java based configuration without (or minimal) annotations. http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.0.x/spring-framework-reference/html/beans.html#beans-java

I might be wrong, but I thought Annotations (as in Java's #Tag and C#'s [Attribute]) were a compile-time option, and XML was a run-time option. That to me says the are not equivalent and have different pros and cons.

I also think a mix is the best thing, but it also depends on the type of configuration parameters.
I'm working on a Seam project which also uses Spring and I usually deploy it to different development and test servers. So I have split:
Server specific configuration (Like absolute paths to resources on server): Spring XML file
Injecting beans as members of other beans (or reusing a Spring XML defined value in many beans): Annotations
The key difference is that you don't have to recompile the code for all changing server-specific configurations, just edit the xml file.
There's also the advantage that some configuration changes can be done by team members who don't understand all the code involved.

In the scope of DI container, I consider annotation based DI is abusing the use of Java annotation. By saying that, I don't recommend to use it widely in your project. If your project does really needs the power of DI container, I would recommend to use Spring IoC with Xml based configuration option.
If it is just for a sake of Unit-test, developers should apply Dependency Inject pattern in their coding and take advantages from mocking tools such as EasyMock or JMock to circumvent dependencies.
You should try to avoid using DI container in its wrong context.

Configuration information that is always going to be linked to a specific Java component (class, method, or field) is a good candidate to be represented by annotations. Annotations work especially well in this case when the configuration is core to the purpose of the code. Because of the limitations on annotations, it's also best when each component can only ever have one configuration. If you need to deal with multiple configurations, especially ones that are conditional on anything outside the Java class containing an annotation, annotations may create more problems than they solve. Finally, annotations cannot be modified without recompiling the Java source code, so anything that needs to be reconfigurable at run time can't use annotations.
Please refer following links. They might be useful too.
Annotations vs XML, advantages and disadvantages
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-cwt08025/

This is the classic 'Configuration versus Convention' question. Personal taste dictates the answer in most cases. However, personally I prefer Configuration (i.e. XML based) over Convention. IMO IDE's are sufficiently robust enough to overcome some of the XML hell people often associate w/ the building and maintaining an XML based approach. In the end, I find the benefits of Configuration (such as building utilities to build, maintain and deploy the XML config file) outweighs Convention in the long run.

I use both. Mostly XML, but when I have a bunch of beans that inherit from a common class and have common properties, I use annotations for those, in the superclass, so I don't have to set the same properties for each bean. Because I'm a bit of a control freak, I use #Resource(name="referredBean") instead of just autowiring stuff (and save myself a lot of trouble if I ever need another bean of the same class as the original referredBean).

There are some pros and cons of annotation configuration from my experience:
When it comes to JPA configuration since it is done once and usually are not changed quite often I prefer to stick to annotation configuration. There maybe a concern regarding possibility to see a bigger picture of configuration - in this case I use MSQLWorkbench diagrams.
Xml configuration is very good to get a bigger picture of application but it maybe cumbersome to find some errors until runtime. In this case Spring #Configuration annotation sounds as a better choice since it let you see a bigger picture as well and also allows to validate configuration on compile time.
As for Spring configuration I prefer to combine both approaches: use #Configuration annotation with Services and Query interfaces and xml configuration for dataSource and spring configuration stuff like context:component-scan base-package="..."
But xml configuration bits java annotations when it comes to flow configuration(Spring Web Flow or Lexaden Web Flow) since it is extremely important to see a bigger picture of the whole business process. And it sounds cumbersome to have it implemented with annotations approach.
I prefer combining both approaches - java annotations and essential xml minimum that minimize configuration hell.

For Spring Framework I like the idea of being able to use the #Component annotation and setting the "component-scan" option so that Spring can find my java beans so that I do not have to define all of my beans in XML, nor in JavaConfig. For example, for stateless singleton java beans that simply need to be wired up to other classes (via an interface ideally) this approach works very well. In general, for Spring beans I have for the most part moved away from Spring XML DSL for defining beans, and now favor the use of JavaConfig and Spring Annotations because you get some compile time checking of your configuration and some refactoring support that you don't get with Spring XML configuration. I do mix the two in certain rare cases where I've found that JavaConfig/Annotations can't do what is available using XML configuration.
For Hibernate ORM (haven't used JPA yet) I still prefer the XML mapping files because annotations in domain model classes to some degree violates The Clean Architecture which is a layering architectural style I have adopted over the past few years. The violation occurs because it requires the Core Layer to depend on persistence related things such as Hibernate or JPA libraries and it makes the domain model POJOs a bit less persistence ignorant. In fact the Core Layer is not supposed to depend on any other infrastructure at all.
However, if The Clean Architecture is not your "cup of tea" then I can see there are definitely advantages (such as convenience and maintainability) of using Hibernate/JPA annotations in domain model classes over separate XML mapping files.