Subject: verify report findings

From: Unlock Anyone's Background <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:51:22 -0700

Private Arrest Records and Background Info is now Available to Public
Federal Records >> Full Access >> Granted 

Run a Background Check on Anyone Instantly: / http://www.chestnutandr.com/May/arrestRecords/posted/database.index

- No Questions Asked 
- Remain Anonymous

* Gain access to Criminal Records, Judgements & Liens, Previous Addresses, Phone Numbers
Social Media Accounts, Emails

message settings - modify w/ - Alert System Notifications
1107 Valeria Dr. M a r i o n- TX 78124
or http://www.chestnutandr.com/93h/gnoe39-g5.gnro4

The correct answer for traditional Spring architectures is to place transactional semantics on the service classes, for the reasons that others have already described.

An emerging trend in Spring is toward domain-driven design. Spring Roo exemplifies the trend nicely. The idea is to make the domain object POJOs a lot richer than they are on typical Spring architectures (usually they are anemic), and in particular to put transaction and persistence semantics on the domain objects themselves. In cases where all that's needed is simple CRUD operations, the web controllers operate directly on the domain object POJOs (they're functioning as entities in this context), and there's no service tier. In cases where there's some kind of coordination needed between domain objects, you can have a service bean handle that, with @Transaction as per tradition. You can set the transaction propagation on the domain objects to something like REQUIRED so that the domain objects use any existing transactions, such as transactions that were started at the service bean.

Technically this technique makes use of AspectJ and . Roo uses AspectJ inter-type definitions to separate the entity semantics (transactions and persistence) from the domain object stuff (basically fields and business methods).s never changed anywhere after development, ever. Then I realized that "centralized" only has value in quite small systems - only in small systems will you ever be able to grok a configuration file as a whole. And what is really the value of understanding the wiring as a whole, when the same "wirings" are mostly duplicated by dependencies in the code? So the only thing I've kept is meta-data (annotations), which is still kind-of declarative. These never change at runtime and they're never "configuration" data that someone will change on the fly - so I think keeping it in the code is nice.

I use full auto-wiring as much as I can. I love it. I won't go back to old-style spring unless threatened at gun-point. My reasons for preferring fully @Autowired have changed over time.

Right now I think the most important reason for using autowiring is that there's one less abstraction in your system to keep track of. The "bean name" is effectively gone. It turns out the bean name only exists because of xml. So a full layer of abstract indirections (where you would wire bean-name "foo" into bean "bar") is gone. Now I wire the "Foo" interface into my bean directly, and implementation is chosen by run-time profile. This allows me to work with code when tracing dependencies and implementations. When I see an autowired dependency in my code I can just press the "go to implementation" key in my IDE and up comes the list of known implementations. In most cases there's just one implementation and I'm straight into the class. Can't be much simpler than that, and I always know exactly what implementation is being used (I claim that the opposite is closer to the truth with xml wiring - funny how your perspective changes)
lic class SecurityContextHolderFacade implements SecurityContextFacade {

  public SecurityContext getContext() {
    return SecurityContextHolder.getContext();
  }

  public void setContext(SecurityContext securityContext) {
    SecurityContextHolder.setContext(securityContext);
  }
Now you could say that it's just a very simple layer, but each layer of abstraction that we add to our systems increase complexity. I really don't think the xml ever added any real value to any system I've worked with.

Most systems I've ever work with only have one configuration of the production runtime environment. There may be other configurations for test and so on.

I'd say that full autowiring is the ruby-on-rails of spring: It embraces the notion that there's a normal and common usage pattern that most use cases follow. With XML configuration you permit a lot of consistent/inconsistent configuration usage that may/may not be intended. I've seen so much xml configuration go overboard with inconsistencies - does it get refactored together with the code ? Thought not. Are those variations there for a reason? Usually not.

We hardly use qualifiers in our configuration, and found other ways to solve these situations. This is a clear "disadvantage" we encounter: We've slightly changed the way we code to make it interact smoother with autowiring: A customer repository no longer implements the generic Repository<Customer> interface but we make an interface CustomerRepository that extends Repository<Customer>. Sometimes there's also a trick or two when it comes to subclassing. But it usually just points us in the direction of stronger typing, which I find is almost always a better solution.

But yes, you're tying to a particular style of DI that mostly spring does. We don't even make public setters for dependencies any more (So you could argue that we're +1 in the encapsulation/information hiding department) We still have some xml in our system, but the xml basically only contains the anomalies. Full autowiring integrates nicely with xml.d="propertyConfigurer"   
  class="org.springframework.beans.factory.config.PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer">
        <property name="location" value="/WEB-INF/app.properties" />
</bean> 

<bean id="appProperties" 
          class="org.springframework.beans.factory.config.PropertiesFactoryBean">
        <property name="singleton" value="true"/>

        <property name="properties">
                <props>
                        <prop key="results.max">{results.max}</prop>
                </props>