Source-level metadata is the addition of attributes or annotations to program elements: usually, classes and/or methods.

For example, we might add metadata to a class as follows:

/**
 * Normal comments
 * @@org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.DefaultTransactionAttribute()
 */
public class PetStoreImpl implements PetStoreFacade, OrderService {

We could add metadata to a method as follows:

/**
 * Normal comments
 * @@org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.RuleBasedTransactionAttribute ()
 * @@org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.RollbackRuleAttribute (Exception.class)
 * @@org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.NoRollbackRuleAttribute ("ServletException")
 */
public void echoException(Exception ex) throws Exception {
    ....
}

Both these examples use Jakarta Commons Attributes syntax.

Source-level metadata was introduced to the mainstream with the release of Microsoft's .NET platform, which uses source-level attributes to control transactions, pooling and other behaviour.

The value in this approach has been recognized in the J2EE community. For example, it's much less verbose than the traditional XML deployment descriptors exclusively used by EJB. While it is desirable to externalize some things from program source code, some important enterprise settings--notably transaction characteristics--belong in program source. Contrary to the assumptions of the EJB spec, it seldom makes sense to modify the transactional characteristics of a method.

Although metadata attributes are typically used mainly by framework infrastructure to describe the services application classes require, it should also be possible for metadata attributes to be queried at runtime. This is a key distinction from solutions such as XDoclet, which primarily view metadata as a way of generating code such as EJB artefacts.

There are a number of solutions in this space, including:

In keeping with its provision of abstractions over important concepts, Spring provides a facade to metadata implementations, in the form of the org.springframework.metadata.Attributes interface.

Such a facade adds value for several reasons:

Thus Spring will support JSR-175 before Java 1.5 reaches GA, but will continue to offer an attribute abstraction API.

The Spring Attributes interface looks like this:

public interface Attributes {

    Collection getAttributes(Class targetClass);

    Collection getAttributes(Class targetClass, Class filter);

    Collection getAttributes(Method targetMethod);

    Collection getAttributes(Method targetMethod, Class filter);

    Collection getAttributes(Field targetField);

    Collection getAttributes(Field targetField, Class filter);
}

This is a lowest common denominator interface. JSR-175 offers more capabilities than this, such as attributes on method arguments. As of Spring 1.0, Spring aims to provide the subset of metadata required to provide effective declarative enterprise services a la EJB or .NET. Beyond Spring 1.0, it is likely that Spring will provide further metadata methods.

Note that this interface offers Object attributes, like .NET. This distinguishes it from attribute systems such as that of Nanning Aspects and JBoss 4 (as of DR2), which offer only String attributes. There is a significant advantage in supporting Object attributes. It enables attributes to participate in class hierarchies and enables attributes to react intelligently to their configuration parameters.

In most attribute providers, attribute classes will be configured via constructor arguments or JavaBean properties. Commons Attributes supports both.

As with all Spring abstraction APIs, Attributes is an interface. This makes it easy to mock attribute implementations for unit tests.

Presently Spring supports only Jakarta Commons Attributes out of the box, although it is easy to provide implementations of the org.springframework.metadata.Attributes interface for other metadata providers.

Commons Attributes 2.1 (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/attributes/) is a capable attributes solution. It supports attribute configuration via constructor arguments and JavaBean properties, which offers better self-documentation in attribute definitions. (Support for JavaBean properties was added at the request of the Spring team.)

We've already seen two examples of Commons Attributes attributes definitions. In general, we will need to express:

Bean properties look as follows:

/**
 * @@MyAttribute(myBooleanJavaBeanProperty=true)
 */

It's possible to combine constructor arguments and JavaBean properties (as in Spring IoC).

Because, unlike Java 1.5 attributes, Commons Attributes is not integrated with the Java language, it is necessary to run a special attribute compilation step as part of the build process.

To run Commons Attributes as part of the build process, you will need to do the following.

1. Copy the necessary library Jars to $ANT_HOME/lib. Four Jars are required, and all are distributed with Spring:

2. Import the Commons Attributes ant tasks into your project build script, as follows:

<taskdef resource="org/apache/commons/attributes/anttasks.properties"/>

3. Next, define an attribute compilation task, which will use the Commons Attributes attribute-compiler task to "compile" the attributes in the source. This process results in the generation of additional sources, to a location specified by the destdir attribute. Here we show the use of a temporary directory:

<target name="compileAttributes" >

    <attribute-compiler 
        destdir="${commons.attributes.tempdir}" 
    >
        <fileset dir="${src.dir}" includes="**/*.java"/>
    </attribute-compiler>

</target>

The compile target that runs Javac over the sources should depend on this attribute compilation task, and must also compile the generated sources, which we output to our destination temporary directory. If there are syntax errors in your attribute definitions, they will normally be caught by the attribute compiler. However, if the attribute definitions are syntactically plausible, but specify invalid types or class names, the compilation of the generated attribute classes may fail. In this case, you can look at the generated classes to establish the cause of the problem.

While this attribute compilation process may look complex, in fact it's a one-off cost. Once set up, attribute compilation is incremental, so it doesn't usually noticeably slow the build process. And once the compilation process is set up, you may find that use of attributes as described in this chapter can save you a lot of time in other areas.

If you require attribute indexing support (only currently required by Spring for attribute-targeted web controllers, discussed below), you will need an additional step, which must be performed on a Jar file of your compiled classes. In this, optional, step, Commons Attributes will create an index of all the attributes defined on your sources, for efficient lookup at runtime. This step looks as follows:

<attribute-indexer jarFile="myCompiledSources.jar">
    
    <classpath refid="master-classpath"/>

</attribute-indexer>

If your unit tests depend on attributes, try to express the dependency on the Spring Attributes abstraction, rather than Commons Attributes. Not only is this more portable--for example, your tests will still work if you switch to Java 1.5 attributes in future--it simplifies testing. Commons Attributes is a static API, while Spring provides a metadata interface that you can easily mock.

The most important uses of metadata attributes are in conjunction with Spring AOP. This provides a .NET-like programming model, where declarative services are automatically provided to application objects that declare metadata attributes. Such metadata attributes can be supported out of the box by the framework, as in the case of declarative transaction management, or can be custom.

There is widely held to be a synergy between AOP and metadata attributes.

<bean id="autoproxy" 
    class="org.springframework.aop.framework.autoproxy.DefaultAdvisorAutoProxyCreator">
</bean>

<bean id="transactionAttributeSource"
    class="org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.AttributesTransactionAttributeSource"
    autowire="constructor">
</bean>

<bean id="transactionInterceptor"
    class="org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.TransactionInterceptor"
    autowire="byType">
</bean>

<bean id="transactionAdvisor"
    class="org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.TransactionAttributeSourceAdvisor"
    autowire="constructor" >
</bean>

<bean id="attributes"
    class="org.springframework.metadata.commons.CommonsAttributes"
/>

 /** 
 * @@org.springframework.aop.framework.autoproxy.target.PoolingAttribute (10)
 * 
 * @author Rod Johnson
 */
public class MyClass {

<bean id="poolingTargetSourceCreator"
    class="org.springframework.aop.framework.autoproxy.metadata.AttributesPoolingTargetSourceCreator"
    autowire="constructor" >
</bean>

<bean id="autoproxy" 
    class="org.springframework.aop.framework.autoproxy.DefaultAdvisorAutoProxyCreator">
>
    <property name="customTargetSourceCreators">
        <list>
            <ref local="poolingTargetSourceCreator" />
        </list>
    </property>
</bean>

The other main use of Spring metadata as of 1.0 is to provide an option to simplify Spring MVC web configuration.

Spring MVC offers flexible handler mappings: mappings from incoming request to controller (or other handler) instance. Normally handler mappings are configured in the xxxx-servlet.xml file for the relevant Spring DispatcherServlet.

Holding these mappings in the DispatcherServlet configuration file is normally A Good Thing. It provides maximum flexibility. In particular:

However, this does mean that for each controller we typically need both a handler mapping (normally in a handler mapping XML bean definition) and an XML mapping for the controller itself.

Spring offers a simpler approach based on source-level attributes, which is an attractive option in simpler scenarios.

In this approach, controllers are marked with one or more class-level metadata attributes, each specifying one URL they should be mapped to.

The following examples show the approach. In each case, we have a controller that depends on a business object of type Cruncher. As usual, this dependency will be resolved by Dependency Injection. The Cruncher must be available through a bean definition in the relevant DispatcherServlet XML file, or a parent context.

We attach an attribute to the controller class specifying the URL that should map to it. We can express the dependency through a JavaBean property or a constructor argument. This dependency must be resolvable by autowiring: that is, there must be exactly one business object of type Cruncher available in the context.

/**
 * Normal comments here
 * @author Rod Johnson
 * @@org.springframework.web.servlet.handler.metadata.PathMap("/bar.cgi")
 */
public class BarController extends AbstractController {

    private Cruncher cruncher;

    public void setCruncher(Cruncher cruncher) {
        this.cruncher = cruncher;
    }

    protected ModelAndView handleRequestInternal(
            HttpServletRequest arg0, HttpServletResponse arg1) 
            throws Exception {
        System.out.println("Bar Crunching c and d =" + 
            cruncher.concatenate("c", "d"));
        return new ModelAndView("test");
    }

}

For this automapping to work, we need to add the following to the relevant xxxx-servlet.xml file, specifying the attributes handler mapping. This special handler mapping can handle any number of controllers with attributes as shown above. The bean id ("commonsAttributesHandlerMapping") is not important. The type is what matters:

<bean id="commonsAttributesHandlerMapping"      
    class="org.springframework.web.servlet.handler.metadata.CommonsPathMapHandlerMapping"
/>

We do not currently need an Attributes bean definition, as in the above example, because this class works directly with the Commons Attributes API, not via the Spring metadata abstraction.

We now need no XML configuration for each controller. Controllers are automatically mapped to the specified URL(s). Controllers benefit from IoC, using Spring's autowiring capability. For example, the dependency expressed in the "cruncher" bean property of the simple controller shown above is automatically resolved in the current web application context. Both Setter and Constructor Dependency Injection are available, each with zero configuration.

An example of Constructor Injection, also showing multiple URL paths:

/**
* Normal comments here
* @author Rod Johnson
* 
* @@org.springframework.web.servlet.handler.metadata.PathMap("/foo.cgi")
* @@org.springframework.web.servlet.handler.metadata.PathMap("/baz.cgi")
*/
public class FooController extends AbstractController {

    private Cruncher cruncher;

    public FooController(Cruncher cruncher) {
        this.cruncher = cruncher;
    }

    protected ModelAndView handleRequestInternal(
            HttpServletRequest arg0, HttpServletResponse arg1) 
            throws Exception {
        return new ModelAndView("test");
    }

}

This approach has the following benefits:

This approach has the following limitations:

Because autowiring by type means there must be exactly one dependency of the specified type, we need to be careful if we use AOP. In the common case using TransactionProxyFactoryBean, for example, we end up with two implementations of a business interface such as Cruncher: the original POJO definition, and the transactional AOP proxy. This won't work, as the owning application context can't resolve the type dependency unambiguously. The solution is to use AOP autoproxying, setting up the autoproxy infrastructure so that there is only one implementation of Cruncher defined, and that implementation is automatically advised. Thus this approach works well with attribute-targeted declarative services as described above. As the attributes compilation process must be in place to handle the web controller targeting, this is easy to set up.

Unlike other metadata functionality, there is currently only a Commons Attributes implementation available: org.springframework.web.servlet.handler.metadata.CommonsPathMapHandlerMapping. This limitation is due to the fact that not only do we need attribute compilation, we need attribute indexing: the ability to ask the attributes API for all classes with the PathMap attribute. Indexing is not currently offered on the org.springframework.metadata.Attributes abstraction interface, although it may be in future. (If you want to add support for another attributes implementation--which must support indexing--you can easily extend the AbstractPathMapHandlerMapping superclass of CommonsPathMapHandlerMapping, implementing the two protected abstract methods to use your preferred attributes API.)

Thus we need two additional steps in the build process: attribute compilation and attribute indexing. Use of the attribute indexer task was shown above. Note that Commons Attributes presently requires a Jar file as input to indexing.

Other uses of metadata attributes appear to be growing in popularity. As of March 2004, an attribute-based validation package for Spring is in development. The one-off setup cost of attribute parsing looks more attractive, when the potential for multiple uses is considered.

Should you wish to provide support for another metadata API it is easy to do so.

Simply implement the org.springframework.metadata.Attributes interface as a facade for your metadata API. You can then include this object in your bean definitions as shown above.

All framework services that use metadata, such as AOP metadata-driven autoproxying, will then automatically be able to use your new metadata provider.