Why is the Spring framework called "non-intrusive"?

Spring framework is N开发者_JAVA技巧ON - INTRUSIVE.

Can you please elaborate this?

Thank You :)

Here, "non-intrusive" means that your application code doesn't need to depend on the Spring framework directly. Anything that can inject the appropriate dependencies will (theoretically) work just as well.

The main appeal of a nonintrusive framework is that it stays out of the way of your design and modelling activities. It stays completely out of the way until you need it.

It is perfectly possible to use Spring without any direct dependencies on the spring framework in your application code. That doesn't mean the code will continue to function without spring, since the functionality provided by spring will need to be replaced by another IoC container or code which directly instantiates all objects in a dependency chain, but it does mean that you can choose to wire things up with spring, or via some other mechanism.

However, to be really unintrusive with spring, you need to keep all of your configuration outside of your code, which means using XML for everything. This works beautifully in spring, but its a pain in the neck for developers and, since the advent of the widespread use of annotations in Java 5, isn't really the java way. So spring provides lots of annotations for wiring things together directly in your code. This can obviously create dependencies on Spring within the code, although all of the Spring tags are resolved at compile time, so you can still execute your classes outside of a spring context without any dependencies on spring jars and such. Also, wherever possible, custom spring annotations have been replaced with generic JEE annotations. With Spring 3, it is really pretty easy to use only JEE annotations plus a limited quantity of XML to initialize the application context.

The beauty of the spring way of doing things is that the underlying functionality which implements a feature can often be selected at runtime. If you are using an ORM system in a non-managed container for development, using a native session manager, you can easily switch to container managed sessions in production without changing any code whatsoever if you have configured the app to let spring handle transaction management. Methods that are marked as @Transactional will pick up a session and transaction automatically, regardless of the source, without any changes to the code. In fact, you can trivially switch to an entirely different ORM framework, if you are so inclined, though that's a pretty rare use case, in truth, so most applications will tend to have ORM framework specific code and/or queries in their data access code.

The difference between spring and an old-fashioned 'intrusive' framework is that intrusive frameworks often require you to implement particular interfaces or, even worse, force you to inherit from particular base classes, in order to access framework functionality. In the latter case, not only do you have a dependency on the framework you are using, but it severely limits your class hierarchy structure, too - in a language which only allows single inheritance. Recent versions of EJB learned from the elegance of Spring's (and others') less-intrusive model and EJB itself has since become much less intrusive (It's all about the POJOs).

I don't really see any support for irreputable's argument that spring is now a billion dollar beast that locks users in. Spring is, if anything, less intrusive than it has ever been while offering ever more functionality. It is certainly possible to lock yourself into spring, and a lot of devs are perfectly willing to do so precisely because the runtime overhead of using spring is so trivially small that most of us can't imagine a lot of scenarios in which we might remove spring from a project. If I want a fully managed JEE environment, I can configure for that (and run in the container of any available vendor). If I want to run in tomcat or jetty with 100% of configuration and runtime management coming from spring, I can do that, too. So I'm generally perfectly happy to use spring-specific functionality at the risk of lock-in unless the project requirements specifically forbid it. Spring adds very little overhead at runtime, so it is a low risk choice.

When push comes to shove, I find Spring to be far easier to learn than EJB. I can accomplish the same things with either methodology, but it is easier to bring in devs who are inexperienced if I'm using Spring compared to EJB, so hiring is easier, long term maintenance costs are lower, and release cycles are shorter.

No matter what the language direction, generally speaking, a framework is too intrusive, which is a voice of criticism, so I guess it is not because of this that non intrusiveness has become a "selling point" of publicity.

For example, spring and struts 2 use annotations, configuration files, conventions or reflection (other languages may be other ways) to achieve non-invasive, and the compilation and operation does not have formal dependence on the framework API.

But in essence, without this framework, our program simply cannot run correctly. These so-called annotations are customized. When and how they are processed are different. Think about the migration from gson to Jackson. The migration has costs and risks. Do you need users to write a new one?

In addition, how high is the probability of real migration? It feels very small.

years ago, there was this EJB beast, which was very "intrusive". Spring was touted to be a much simpler set of helper classes, and it was more like libraries than frameworks.

today, Spring becomes the new beast. As a billion dollar business, it is in their best interest to lock people in. Yeah, sure, you don't have a dependency problem, and you can quit Spring anytime.

With EJB, at least you have a few vendors to choose from.