Is it possible to use the Grails Cache plugin's annotations (ie: #Cacheable) on methods in normal Groovy classes? The plugin's documentation doesn't mention anything about normal Groovy classes and based on my own tests the annotations have no effect when used in a normal class. So I'm just wondering if there's a way to get the annotations to work in a normal Groovy class.
The current alternative is to simply directly access the cache in the method via the Cache Manager bean, but it would be nice to use the annotations instead.
No, the annotation only works on services and controllers. The plugin detects the annotation and creates a proxy for the service which intercepts all method calls and does the cache-related work first. So if there is a value in the cache for that method, it won't bother calling your real method but return the cached value instead. But if it's not cached, it will call your method and use its return value, but cache that for later.
This works because you have to retrieve the service from the Spring ApplicationContext (or have Grails do that for you) and this gives Spring a chance to give you the proxy instead of the real implementation instance, but there's no way for Spring to know about access to regular Groovy classes without AOP or some other more invasive solution.
Having said that, the plugin is probably being overly strict in limiting to only controllers and services. It handles controllers specially because those involve caching web requests instead of method return values, but there shouldn't be much difference between a Grails service and any other annotated Spring bean as far as caching goes. You can add your own Spring beans, either manually in grails-app/conf/spring/resources.groovy or by adding them to the grails.spring.bean.packages list in Config.groovy, so the plugin should be updated to look for all annotated classes. You can request this in the plugin's JIRA at https://jira.grails.org/browse/GPCACHE
Related
My question is not only if action classes can be scoped to singleton, but I also want to know which are the best practices. Both in context of Struts2 and Spring. Best scope of VIEW (say request or session), for controller and model.
Struts2 Actions are managed by the Struts Container. They are ThreadLocal, hence every request has its own thread-safe copy of the Action.
If you use Spring to handle them through the Struts2-Spring-plugin, there are multiple levels of usage:
you can let the Struts container instantiate them, and handle them through Spring for the Dependency Injection, or
you can let Spring take over control and be fully responsible for the whole lifecycle of every Action. In this second case:
if you declare an action as a bean in a Spring XML configuration file, the action will get the default Spring scope, that is Singleton (scope="singleton"). THIS IS DANGEROUS, USELESS, and 99.99% of the times NOT WHAT YOU WANT, because you will lose a fundamental part of the framework capability, actions will be turned into kind-of servlets, thread-UNsafe, and many problems will arise;
to prevent that, you can put the scope="prototype" in the bean declaration, that will let Spring instantiate the action without affecting its nature.
If you are inside a container Java EE 6+ compliant (for example, Jboss 7, Wildfly 8, TomEE 1.7, Glassfish 3+, ecc...), the Contexts and the Dependency Injections are handled through CDI. If you want, you can use the Struts2-CDI-plugin to allow CDI to handle your actions and inject dependencies through the #Inject annotation (instead of the #Autowired one)
I've used Spring a lot in the past, then after discovering CDI and the CDI plugin, I've switched and never looked back, so I vote for the n.3
I was through the integration testing documentation for Grails and I noticed this line:
Grails does not invoke interceptors or servlet filters when calling actions during integration testing.
source: http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/testing.html#integrationTesting
Why is this? It would make my testing life a lot easier if Grails did invoke the filters. My project makes heavy use of filters and many of my controllers depend on my filters in order to do anything.
I was thinking about it and it seems like one could use groovy black magic to automatically execute the filters in an integration test. Has anyone already done this, or is this something that I'd have to write?
The environment used for integration tests is similar to what's available during run-app; Spring is active, plugins are loaded, a database is available, etc. Pretty much everything except for a web server. Without a server, there are no real requests, no servlet filters, and no Grails filters (which are wrappers for Spring controller HandlerAdaptors). When testing controllers you can access a request and response thanks to the Spring servlet API mock classes. But none of the real web request lifecycle is active, it's all just simulated.
You're right that it should be doable with some custom code. When you do this, please consider making it a plugin so we can all share :)
What is the best way to configure a Grails service with environment specific values? I believe there are two options:
access grailsApplication values from within the service class or
configure the service bean in a beans closure in Config.groovy or resources.groovy.
I've seen a couple of posts on stackoverflow and other places that show how to do #1 (accessing grailsApplication in the service). One such post is: Inject grails application configuration into service.
However, I think this creates an unnecessary coupling of the service to Grails. Isn't this similar to accessing Spring's applicationContext in a pojo rather than configuring/injecting the values? Also, I've not had any luck getting this to work in a unit test of the service class as of yet.
Two books have examples of injecting the properties (approach #2). The book The Definitive Guide to Grails 2, chapter 10, section entitled "Services in Action" shows how to do this, but without an environment specific value. The book Groovy and Grails Recipes, section 16-2 also shows an example using resources.groovy, but I've not been able to get it to work either yet.
The following blog post also has a nice example, but not environment specific: http://ldaley.com/post/1253952347/getting-more-out-of-property-override-configuration. Chapter 15 of the Grails Reference is consistent with these examples as well and shows how to set the properties on a bean on a per environment basis.
However, none of the examples of either approach give any opinion or rational for doing it one way or another. Is there really no pros and cons to either approach? Wouldn't the injection approach be easier to unit test and more consistent with the spring way of doing things?
Nathan
I'd say use whichever you're more comfortable with. I tend to go with accessing grailsApplication.config directly from the service, because that lets you make the configuration more "semantic" (for want of a better word) in the sense that you can name the configuration options after what they do, rather than which bean they control. And if two (or more) different beans need to know the site administrator's email address (for example) then they can both read grailsApplication.config.myapp.admin.email rather than my having to configure beans.monitorService.destinationEmail and beans.userService.fromEmail separately.
In unit tests you'd have to mock the grailsApplication config anyway, so it's no big deal filling in test values for the config options your services need to read.
There's a difference in the concept of services (classes that exists in the service folder) and Spring Beans defined in resources.groovy.
To services, Grails already setup transactions:
Services are typically involved with coordinating logic between domain
classes, and hence often involved with persistence that spans large
operations. Given the nature of services, they frequently require
transactional behaviour. You can use programmatic transactions with
the withTransaction method, however this is repetitive and doesn't
fully leverage the power of Spring's underlying transaction
abstraction.
The Spring Beans that you declared aren't transactional by default.
"However, I think this creates an unnecessary coupling of the service
to Grails"
Since Grails services differ from Spring Beans I don't see a problem using approach #1.
For Unit Tests you need to manually wire up you service instance. Example:
class MyService {
def grailsApplication
}
class MyServiceTests {
MyService getServiceInstance() {
MyService myService = new MyService()
myService.grailsApplication = grailsApplication //static attribute in unit tests
return myService
}
}
I'm replacing the service tier in an existing older Struts2 project with Spring service beans developed for another project.
I'd like to just #Inject these service beans into my Action classes.
Is it required to use Struts' Spring Plugin? Or can I add Spring into my Struts web application like I would any other (ContextLoaderListener, applicationContext.xml, context:component-scan)?
Am I missing some reason why the Struts Spring plugin helps me in another way?
Many thanks!
Well you can do the most of the things what you have described in your question as Services layer is completely out of view for the S2 and Struts2 do not care how you are creating your Service layer instances and other things.
Benefits i am seeing of using Struts2-Spring plugin is to delegate creation of Struts2 related things to Spring like Action classes creation,Interceptors,Results etc.
My Suggestion is to use the plugin as you are going to use the Spring in your application so its very good and flexible as well powerful to use the power of Spring DI to create required objects needed by S2 else S2 will use its own data creation factory to create framework component.
Why wouldn't you use the Spring plugin?
It's essentially invisible, uses Spring to create your actions (including injecting other Spring beans), etc.
Guice's #Inject doesn't know anything about Spring beans, AFAIK, so you'd be naming classes manually, they'd be instantiated via normal Java/Guice mechanisms, wouldn't be injected with their own Spring dependencies (unless you did it manually, or via AOP, or whatever).
You'd also need to use non-Spring mechanisms for doing injection in testing, which is fine, but unless you provide more details regarding your usecase, I don't really see a reason to bypass the functionality the Spring plugin provides out-of-the-box.
I'd like to add some service method interceptor into my grails application. Interceptor should be a Spring managed object (it should be possible to inject whatever I want into it). and I want to specify which service/methods to intercept. As I understand it should be something like spring bean definition in 'conf/spring/resources.groovy', in other words, I'd like to use typical Spring approach. Strange, but I can't find any info on this topic.
Check out the Spring docs on AOP and this post http://www.objectpartners.com/2010/10/19/grails-plumbing-spring-aop-interceptors/