[Springframework-developer] TransactionInterceptor setup in the webapp-aop skeleton file is bad

[Colin S. <col...@ex...>]

In the file
  samples/skeletons/webapp-aop/WEB-INF/applicationContext.xml
there is an example of how to set up a transaction interceptor. It is 
using the old mechanism, which is not the problem, but is wrong, which 
is the problem.

The example uses
    <bean id="exampleTransactionInterceptor" 
class="org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.TransactionInterceptor">
        <property name="transactionManager"><ref 
bean="myTransactionManager"/></property>
        <property name="transactionAttributeSource">
            <value>
                
example.ExampleBusinessObject.exampleMethod=PROPAGATION_REQUIRED
                
example.ExampleBusinessObject.anotherExampleMethod=PROPAGATION_REQUIRED
            </value>
        </property>
    </bean>
    <bean id="exampleBusinessObject" 
class="org.springframework.aop.framework.ProxyFactoryBean">
        <property 
name="proxyInterfaces"><value>example.ExampleBusinessInterface</value></property>
        <property 
name="interceptorNames"><value>exampleTransactionInterceptor,exampleBusinessObjectTarget</value></property>
    </bean>

Now this is specifyng that ExampleBusinessObject.exmpleMethod and 
ExampleBuisnessObject.anotherExampleMethod should be intercepted and 
handled transactionally, but if the user comes in via the interface 
ExampleBusinessInterface like he should be, then the interceptor will 
not match up on the method names, since the class he is coming in as is 
ExampleBusinessInterface not the ExampleBusinessObject the interceptor 
is looking for.

This is the exact problem that Ben Alex was having last week (but I 
didn't spot it at the time). Hopefully he didn't give up on spring yet :-)

Can somebody fix this?  Also, fwiw this doesn't happen with the new, 
streamlined mechanism, TransactionProxyFactoryBean, since there you 
directly point to the object you are proxying, and match the method 
coming in regardless.

Also, it's probably worth updating the example to show both the old 
mechanism and the new one.

Regards,
Colin