Michael Nascimento Santos's Blog

Patterns Archives

Practical AOP (Part 1): Transparent remoting with AOP and EJBs

There are basically four views about AOP nowadays (ok, it's more or less the same for any technology): those who think it's the golden hammer and everything is a nail, those who think it has some applicability, those who are strongly against it or have deep concerns about its wild adoption and those who simply couldn't care less about it. :-) I hope this kind of posts I intend to write help all the four groups in some way.

Let's start with an example most people are familiar with: remoting. Many technologies try to address remoting with different approaches - RMI, CORBA, EJB, webservices etc. - and each one has its own applicability, since most of them (are intended to) do more than just remoting. Also, these technologies can be implemented in several ways - consider the way EJB implementations in application servers has evolved, as an example. So, let's narrow our requirements for this case of study:

• Remoting should be transparent to the user. So, this means not even lookup or interfaces should be necessary for a user to call a remote component.
• We want to keep the benefits provided by EJB technology - security, transactionality, etc. - but without any complicated constraint on our code. We don't want to write tons of rules for a Hello World.

In a simple way, we want EJB benefits without any of its limitations. How could we implement this?

Using genesis this should be as hard as:

public class RemoteClass implements java.io.Serializable {
   /**
    * @Remotable
    */
   public void helloWorld() {
      System.out.println("Hello world");
   }
}

public class Client {
   public static void main(String[] args) {
      RemoteClass remote = new RemoteClass();
      remote.helloWorld();
   }
}

If you run this example using a genesis empty-project based structure, putting RemoteClass in your shared sources dir and Client in your client sources dir you will see that "Hello World" actually gets printed in your application server console. How this magic happens?

genesis' aspect named net.java.dev.genesis.aspect.EJBCommandExecutionAspect intercepts execution of methods annotated as @Remotable as defined in aop.xml and executes the method call inside a Stateless Session Bean in the server side. Since you have a simple POJO, you are not constrained and can take advantage from any OO feature you want, including instantiating a remote object with new if that's what you want, and you still get all the benefits from EJB technology. It's a much cleaner approach to remoting than other ones currently available and it's certainly going to be expanded on future releases to support full Session Beans semantics with plain POJOs - as well as the current model.

For further information about how this actually is implemented by genesis, refer to the documentation pages for genesis aspects and genesis business component model.

EJB 3.0 - Is it going to solve our problems?

UPDATE: Brazilian Portuguese translation / tradução para o português do Brasil no JavaFree

To begin with, I must congratulate the JSR-220 EG for their braveness. I can't think of any spec in the JCP that has been changed in such a dramatic way as this one. Linda said during the last JavaOne she intended to kill deployment descriptors and to simplify the programming model as much as possible. However, I never thought the EG would take that words so seriously and would drop the current model - ok, "drop" may sound too strong, but, even though they are going to support it, anyone writing code will prefer the new API unless there is some political/business objection for not doing so - for a POJO-based one.

So, now it's time to explain why I think we can simplify EJB 3.0 even more and give tremendous flexibility for the hardcore developer without making any EJB look cluttered or ugly (some people said Linda stated it still will be necessary to use the "old model" for some hard stuff; this sounds extremely unpleasant to me, I must say). The new programming model for EJB 3.0 seems to rely heavily on annotations. This certainly is a good thing compared to the deployment descriptor hell, but there are two things missing that would make turn this idea into something really powerful:

• Annotation processors: what do you do when the security capabilities of your app server are insufficient or inadequate for your needs? Change vendors? But what if the first vendor has a feature you need, but that the second one doesn't offer something similar? That's one of the flaws we're still keeping: vendors will implement the spec in some way that may not be what you need/want. And what can you do about it? Almost nothing, besides throwing your app server away or relying on a non-standard solution - sometimes, it means not using EJBs for a part of your project they'd be the perfect fit if only that feature had been implemented in a better way by your app server vendor. What if you could write implementations for the services an EJB container should offer? You may now say: "hey, but that's exactly what I've paid for", but it's often needed. Vendors are not capable of foreseeing every need you'll have. It'd be even better if we had a standard spi for all the services an EJB container is supposed to provide. In that way, you could swap small components or, even better, write a decorator around a app server specific implementation so that you could only provide the one missing functionality you need - instance-based security for entity beans, for example - and delegating the other features to your app server default implementation. Imagine how many problems you would be able to solve if you could change or augment the functionality provided by an application server in a standard way! I can tell you it would solve around 80% of my issues with EJB. The other 20% would be solved as shown below:
• Support for custom, user-defined annotations: frequently, we need to add services to our components that are not part of the EJB spec. If this feature is not so domain-specific, chances are some vendor has provided support for it. And then, welcome to vendor lock-in! You are left with two choices: go for vendor lock-in or write terrible code just in order to have a portable application. Wouldn't it be nice if you could solve it in a elegant, portable way? Custom annotations and custom annotation processors could be the answer. Imagine if you could write an small session in an deployment descriptor declaring a custom annotation and an implementation of an interface, AnnotationProcessor, that's capable of handling it. You could define your own implementation or simply delegate the processing of your custom annotation to a class provided by your container of choice. You could get portability and still benefit from non-standard features your vendor offers you. Annotations without properly-configured processors would be simply logged at deployment time, since they could be there for a nice reason - for example, you might want to "tag" your methods for some functionality first and implement it after; or maybe that annotations are meant to provide enhancements during runtime and don't represent essential services, like caching, for example.

I am pretty sure some people will say: "Spring (put your favourite lightweight? container here) can do that" or "this is a case for an AOP-based container". I totally agree with the first and I think an AOP-based container would be a good implementation, but the real point is: these are not standards. There is only one Spring - some people might be writing a few implementations for its interfaces, but they are just some people, not major vendors with hundreds or thousands of experienced employees working full-time on that - and AOP frameworks I know are completely different from each other. If we could come to agreement on what basic services an EJB container should provide, a SPI for them and a way to plug custom annotations and to process them, we could get ease of use with maximum flexibility and ability to choose without limiting you to rely on a single vendor for the rest of your life. Vendors would have to provide amazing implementations for each EJB container service and offer a lot of high-quality custom services if they wanted to keep up. A new market of service providers would arise and we'd see a constant increase in the quality of each comercial container out there.

Besides that, there's another idea that annoys me: who said an interface is always a good thing? Even if the container generates it, I am sure I'd be glad to write:

OrderService os = new OrderService();
os.processOrders(orders);

instead of using a container-generated interface for my sesion bean. Plain Java code is great! If I don't need to use some javax.ejb.SessionBeanFactory or to have use a DI container in order to provide interface implementations to my client components, I can hire almost any person who knows basic Java to work with me in my enterprise projects and knowing I won't have to teach them a thing! That is easy of use. Interfaces are needed for a lot of reasons but, as I stated above, they are not always wanted.

Several techniques would be necessary to make these ideas work inside the container - a post-compiling phase, CGLIBed classes, etc. - but that's not my concern at the moment. If I am able to have a similar architecture right now using AspectWerkz - one of the greatest pieces of software I've ever came accross, with incredible support -, why can't enterprise vendors provide something similar?

I am sure that some people would still object saying this would be best addressed by an AOP JSR and a lightweight container JSR, but let's face it: EJB 3.0 started one year ago and it's expected to be finished next year; if we start these other JSRs now, when are we going to see a compliant implementation of them? Besides that, I am not asking for full AOP support; I just want annotation processors and maybe vendors would need to use AOP, CGLIB and/or custom class loaders for achieving my plain Java model. It may not be perfect, but it's better than what we have now in my opinion. What vendors would have to do to support the features doesn't concern me; all I want is a standard solution, with competing implementations, that offers me simplicity, total flexibility and portability.

I do hope someone from the JSR-220 EG reads this blog and post some comments about these ideas.

PS: I really think the JSR-220 EG members are doing great things and think their work must be acknowlegded and praised. They are doing the right thing, although it's hard to do. I just want more :-D. Don't get me wrong: Spring rocks, as well as Pico/NanoContainer. And AspectWerkz will be part of all my future projects unless my client objects, you can be sure. :-D

PS2: This post is inspired by the fact that, several months ago, I posted here some suggestions on how to improve the spec. They were not as drastic as the ideas presented during the last TSSS, but they addressed the most annoying issues I had to face with EJB at that time. Ease of use was, at that time, in my mind, very important for wide adoption, but my post reflected things that even XDoclet and my own frameworks couldn't solve in a decent, clean, non-application-server-dependant way. What amazes me now is that apparently most of those issues aren't going to be addressed by the new spec. Since I wrote that entry, I've been involved in lots of projects and got to know the now popular lightweight frameworks, besides getting my hands dirty with AOP. And I must say that, after playing with these ideas for a while, I got to understand things really must be simpler for the regular work - 95% of it -, but that I still do need a lot of flexibility. And I don't want this flexibility to make my code look harder when I use fancy, obscure, powerful features; I want my business code to always look as simple as the rest of my codebase. The only complexity I want to face is the inherent complexity of my business problem.

Stop the hype about webservices!

I know, I have never been really aggressive in any of my posts. The problem is that, even though there are some wise people - I am not wise, I am just reasonable - telling people they are doing bad things, they keep on doing it. I ought to speak out, then. I have no choice. I can't see people doing something so irrational and still remain silently. Sorry folks, if this entry offends you, but this time it is necessary. It is for your own good. It's like taking medicine that tastes horrible; you don't like it, but it is for your own good.

So, what are webservices for? No, I am _not_ talking about technical definitions here. The real question is: what are webservices meant to be used for? That's hard to answer. So, I'll explain to you what most are missing by answering the simpler question, in my opinion: what are webservices not meant for? Let's go for a couple of examples:

• Webservices are generally not the right technology for integrating two systems written in Java. Yep, that is a fact. If that is what you are using webservices for, you probably should forget about it. It is very likely you are just wasting time: CPU time and development time; you are also wasting network bandwidth. Why do you insist on using webservices for that? If two people can speak English fluently but are very bad at Japanese, so bad that if they see anything in Japanese they have to translate it to English word by word in order to understand it and if this process takes a considerable amount of time, do you really think they should talk in Japanese, even knowing they will never improve their ability to speak in Japanese by doing so? It may surprise you that most people using web services are, in effect, doing just this double translation every day. If you are one of those, please, explain it to me. I don't get it. So, maybe you intend to keep your systems loosely coupled. I understand that. But let me ask you some questions:
  1. Should they be loosely coupled in first place? Sometimes two systems are so tightly coupled that they should be just one system, to begin with. This usually happens in big companies, where political reasons force two groups to buy two solutions from two different vendors to solve two parts of the same indivisible problem that cannot be addressed separately. A sad reality, though.
  2. Doesn't plain old RMI solve your problem? Think about it and tell me why it does not. If you come up with a good answer that is not "RMI limits me to using Java" and that cannot be applied to webservices, maybe you have a point.
• Webservices are generally not the right technology for integrating two systems for which there are better forms of integration. I am totally in favour of maintainability. I am not telling you to use plain sockets for anything not extremely simple. Have you ever heard of RMI/IIOP? J2EE containers support it; so, you have intrinsic support for CORBA in J2EE. Generally, the "other side" also supports it. It has been there for a very long time, its implementations are very stable, its a binary protocol. Why not using CORBA? Just because it isn't hype?

In my own experience - and what my friends have been telling me just proves me I am not wrong -, XML processing takes from 25% to 95% of the total processing time for most usages people are making of it. It is perfectly ok to use XML for configuration; it is generally parsed while your application is starting up, so, there is no real overhead to the end user if it's correctly implemented. But people are using XML - not just webservices - for a lot of reasons; they are using it for generating HTML when JSPs, Velocity or whatever would be faster and simpler by far. Then, they say: "it is easier, because designers don't have to deal with Java". Is it really a good reason? Let me see: you have to convert all your objects to XML - a slow marshalling operation, in most cases -, then someone has to write XSL - if it is the designer who writes it, I am sure s/he would get JSP, JSTL and Velocity; if it is the developer, s/he has to constantly rewrite it as page design/flow changes - and a big bloated XSLT processor has to run - don't tell me that just because now you can compile xsl it is better than plain old Java code. Are there any advantages if you are using Java in both ends? Don't tell me about future uses; future uses may require overhead. I am talking about the system you are writing right now.

There are some situations where using webservices might be wise; if you are integrating with .NET, they might be a good choice - note that they might; it does not automatically mean they are the only technology for the job. There are some other uses, which I am not going to talk about here - as I said, this post is about when not to use webservices. There are some binary formats for webservices, but as far as I could use them and heard people talking about them, the only impression I get is they are still slower than RMI. Webservices might be a good choice for situations where you don't know in what language your clients will be written. Even in such cases, it won't hurt if you expose some plain old interfaces and maybe RMI interfaces too. In fact, a lot of systems will perform better. No, there is no maintainance nightmare here because RMI interfaces and WSDL should be automatically generated. Period.

If you are still concerned about loosely coupling, think: What really makes systems loosely coupled? Interfaces. That is it. Integrate your systems using interfaces and provide them for whomever wants to call your code. If you are using EJBs, use local interfaces until something forces you to use remote interfaces. Use business delegates to access them and make each of their methods throw a CommunicationException and have a factory for building their instances. Why? If your backend implementation uses local interfaces, CommunicationExceptions will never be thrown, but your code will have to handle them. When - if necessary - you change to remote calls, your system will keep working, because it was ready for handling those exceptions! Then, if you have to use webservices because someone decided your backend should be written in .NET, you are still safe! Isn't that great? I'll give you one more tip: if you design your systems using naming conventions and standards, you may be able to implement all your factories and business delegates using dynamic proxies! It'll take less than 100 lines of code and your architecture will be prepared for future changes!

To sum up, If you are going to use webservices, think before doing so; it is very likely there are better options.

Things that could be different - Part 1: Exceptions

Exceptions are a new concept for most people when they get to learn Java. Even though C++ offers some degree of support for them, a number of C++ programmers never heard of exceptions since the language they were used to did not force them to handle or declare exceptions. Other languages are said to have them as well - such as Ada, though I just read this information a few times and know nothing about it -, but no language addresses the issue the same way Java does.

Checked exceptions are a great idea because they force you to accept the fact things can actually go wrong. The more skilled we are, the more we tend to think our code is (almost) perfect and that there is absolutely nothing that could possibly go wrong in that small block we are working on now. Exceptions work as a remainder that something in the environment may not be properly configured and help us to remember the fact that, as humans, we do write code that does not work - and that we always will, though good programmers tend to write it less often. That being said, let's move to the most relevant part of this entry :-D.

So, let's think about it about the way exceptions were designed. To begin with, why does RuntimeException descend from Exception? Lots of frameworks and APIs - EJBs, for example - assume that RuntimeExceptions are system errors that they should handle in a special way - by discarding the instance that has thrown it and rolling back any pending transactions, for instance. So, if you, as programmer, for any reason, decides to write code like that:

try {
   ...
} catch (Exception e) {
  //do something and...
  throw new BusinessException(e);
}

while using these technologies, you'll prevent RuntimeExceptions from being propagated to the upper calling context while maintaining their proper meaning, probably resulting in something entirely different from what you meant. If you need to write code like above - ok, it is a polemical issue, but sometimes it is indeed needed -, you have to catch RuntimeException before catching Exception and rethrow it. What if it was the opposite? What if Exception descended from RuntimeException? Or even better: what if Java had a Exception class with two subclasses: CheckedException and UncheckedException?

That would make exception handling more powerful, as you would be able to handle just checked exceptions (CheckedException), just unchecked exceptions (UncheckedException), all the exceptions (Exception), just errors (Error) or everything that could be thrown (Throwable), without having to remember to "exclude" any type of exception you didn't want to handle.

Another thing that could (should) be different is the inheritance hierarchy. Before JDK 1.4, for example, there was no support for exception chaining. So, lots of developers out there rolled their own solution for this problem at that time. And it wasn't clean or nice, actually. Why? The problem is that there is no easy way to extend the exception system because it relies on inheritance.

People wanted to add a cause to an exception so they could wrap the "real"exception inside a reasonable exception for each application layer. How could it be made? It would be nice if you could just create a subclass of Throwable or (not so good but acceptable) if you could add this behaviour in a subclass of Throwable and then write subclasses of Exception, Error and RuntimeException that inherited from your Throwable subclass, right? But that was not possible, unfortunately. That would require multiple inheritance. If you wanted to implement this simple change, you had to write at least three subclasses - one for each of Exception, Error and RuntimeException - and all of them had to have the same methods declared and implemented. If you wanted to avoid repetition, you had to design a fourth class just to hold the Throwable that caused the exception and provide a getter and a setter, but you still had to implement those methods in your three subclasses and keep a reference to an instance of your fourth class in each of them. Awkward, ugly, terrible are not strong enough to describe this solution.

How could this problem be solved? Actually, that's a pretty complex question with many answers. Exceptions could be based mostly on interfaces and just use one superclass. We could have an Exceptionable class we would have to inherit from, and have three interfaces that would allow a class to be treated as a checked exception, an unchecked exception or an error. Or maybe the throw clause could be different, allowing us to do:

throw e as UncheckedException;

, which would gives us even more flexibility because we would be able to throw the same exception instance as either a checked or an unchecked exception in different contexts. Obviously, we'd still want to have a superclass we were forced to extend in order to be a valid parameter to the throw clause; otherwise, Integers could be treated as valid throwable instances - something ugly, but allowed by C++. There are many other solutions, but the main point is a class hierarchy as we have today is not the best way to make throwable objects being handled differently.

I would like to point out, though, that it is very easy to speak about something that was conceived almost 10 years ago, after many years have passed and after using it and seeing others using it; it's a huge advantage the original creators couldn't have. James Gosling and all the other folks at Sun have made a great job designing Java and its API and, after nearly a decade, it is obvious there are things that could be better. I'll write more about other things - some far more critical than the way exceptions work - soon. Stay tuned!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.