Tuesday 17 November 2009

@Transactional annotation on interface or concrete class?

The Spring team's recommendation is that you only annotate concrete classes with the @Transactional annotation, as opposed to annotating interfaces. You certainly can place the @Transactional annotation on an interface (or an interface method), but this will only work as you would expect it to if you are using interface-based proxies. The fact that annotations are not inherited means that if you are using class-based proxies (proxy-target-class="true") or the weaving-based aspect (mode="aspectj") then the transaction settings will not be recognised by the proxying/weaving infrastructure and the object will not be wrapped in a transactional proxy (which would be decidedly bad). So please do take the Spring team's advice and only annotate concrete classes (and the methods of concrete classes) with the @Transactional annotation.

Note: In proxy mode (which is the default), only 'external' method calls coming in through the proxy will be intercepted. This means that 'self-invocation', i.e. a method within the target object calling some other method of the target object, won't lead to an actual transaction at runtime even if the invoked method is marked with @Transactional!

Consider the use of AspectJ mode if you expect self-invocations to be wrapped with transactions as well. In this case, there won't be a proxy in the first place; instead, the target class will be 'weaved' (i.e. its byte code will be modified) in order to turn @Transactional into runtime behavior on any kind of method.