Spring AOP is implemented in pure Java. There is no need for a special compilation process. Spring AOP does not need to control the class loader hierarchy and is thus suitable for use in a servlet container or application server.
Spring AOP currently supports only method execution join points (advising the execution of methods on Spring beans). Field interception is not implemented, although support for field interception could be added without breaking the core Spring AOP APIs. If you need to advise field access and update join points, consider a language such as AspectJ.
Spring AOP’s approach to AOP differs from that of most other AOP frameworks. The aim is not to provide the most complete AOP implementation (although Spring AOP is quite capable). Rather, the aim is to provide a close integration between AOP implementation and Spring IoC, to help solve common problems in enterprise applications.
Thus, for example, the Spring Framework’s AOP functionality is normally used in conjunction with the Spring IoC container. Aspects are configured by using normal bean definition syntax (although this allows powerful "auto-proxying" capabilities). This is a crucial difference from other AOP implementations. You cannot do some things easily or efficiently with Spring AOP, such as advise very fine-grained objects (typically, domain objects). 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.
Spring AOP never strives to compete with AspectJ to provide a comprehensive AOP solution. We believe that both proxy-based frameworks such as Spring AOP and full-blown frameworks such as AspectJ are valuable and that they are complementary, rather than in competition. Spring seamlessly integrates Spring AOP and IoC with AspectJ, to enable all uses of AOP within a consistent Spring-based application architecture. This integration does not affect the Spring AOP API or the AOP Alliance API. Spring AOP remains backward-compatible. See the following chapter for a discussion of the Spring AOP APIs.
|
One of the central tenets of the Spring Framework is that of non-invasiveness. This is the idea that you should not be forced to introduce framework-specific classes and interfaces into your business or domain model. However, in some places, the Spring Framework does give you the option to introduce Spring Framework-specific dependencies into your codebase. The rationale in giving you such options is because, in certain scenarios, it might be just plain easier to read or code some specific piece of functionality in such a way. However, the Spring Framework (almost) always offers you the choice: You have the freedom to make an informed decision as to which option best suits your particular use case or scenario. One such choice that is relevant to this chapter is that of which AOP framework (and which AOP style) to choose. You have the choice of AspectJ, Spring AOP, or both. You also have the choice of either the @AspectJ annotation-style approach or the Spring XML configuration-style approach. The fact that this chapter chooses to introduce the @AspectJ-style approach first should not be taken as an indication that the Spring team favors the @AspectJ annotation-style approach over the Spring XML configuration-style. See Choosing which AOP Declaration Style to Use for a more complete discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each style. |
|
One of the central tenets of the Spring Framework is that of non-invasiveness. This is the idea that you should not be forced to introduce framework-specific classes and interfaces into your business or domain model. However, in some places, the Spring Framework does give you the option to introduce Spring Framework-specific dependencies into your codebase. The rationale in giving you such options is because, in certain scenarios, it might be just plain easier to read or code some specific piece of functionality in such a way. However, the Spring Framework (almost) always offers you the choice: You have the freedom to make an informed decision as to which option best suits your particular use case or scenario. One such choice that is relevant to this chapter is that of which AOP framework (and which AOP style) to choose. You have the choice of AspectJ, Spring AOP, or both. You also have the choice of either the @AspectJ annotation-style approach or the Spring XML configuration-style approach. The fact that this chapter chooses to introduce the @AspectJ-style approach first should not be taken as an indication that the Spring team favors the @AspectJ annotation-style approach over the Spring XML configuration-style. See Choosing which AOP Declaration Style to Use for a more complete discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each style. |