10.2 Advantages of the Spring Framework's transaction support model

10.2 Advantages of the Spring Framework's transaction support model
Prev	10. Transaction Management	Next

Traditionally, Java EE developers have had two choices for transaction management: global or local transactions, both of which have profound limitations. Global and local transaction management is reviewed in the next two sections, followed by a discussion of how the Spring Framework's transaction management support addresses the limitations of the global and local transaction models.

10.2.1 Global transactions

Global transactions enable you to work with multiple transactional resources, typically relational databases and message queues. The application server manages global transactions through the JTA, which is a cumbersome API to use (partly due to its exception model). Furthermore, a JTA UserTransaction normally needs to be sourced from JNDI, meaning that you also need to use JNDI in order to use JTA. Obviously the use of global transactions would limit any potential reuse of application code, as JTA is normally only available in an application server environment.

Previously, the preferred way to use global transactions was via EJB CMT (Container Managed Transaction): CMT is a form of declarative transaction management (as distinguished from programmatic transaction management). EJB CMT removes the need for transaction-related JNDI lookups, although of course the use of EJB itself necessitates the use of JNDI. It removes most but not all of the need to write Java code to control transactions. The significant downside is that CMT is tied to JTA and an application server environment. Also, it is only available if one chooses to implement business logic in EJBs, or at least behind a transactional EJB facade. The negatives of EJB in general are so great that this is not an attractive proposition, especially in the face of compelling alternatives for declarative transaction management.

10.2.2 Local transactions

Local transactions are resource-specific, such as a transaction associated with a JDBC connection. Local transactions may be easier to use, but have significant disadvantages: they cannot work across multiple transactional resources. For example, code that manages transactions using a JDBC connection cannot run within a global JTA transaction. Because the application server is not involved in transaction management, it cannot help ensure correctness across multiple resources. (It is worth noting that most applications use a single transaction resource.) Another downside is that local transactions are invasive to the programming model.

10.2.3 Spring Framework's consistent programming model

Spring resolves the disadvantages of global and local transactions. It enables application developers to use a consistent programming model in any environment. You write your code once, and it can benefit from different transaction management strategies in different environments. The Spring Framework provides both declarative and programmatic transaction management. Most users prefer declarative transaction management, which is recommended in most cases.

With programmatic transaction management, developers work with the Spring Framework transaction abstraction, which can run over any underlying transaction infrastructure. With the preferred declarative model, developers typically write little or no code related to transaction management, and hence do not depend on the Spring Framework transaction API, or any other transaction API.

Do you need an application server for transaction management?

The Spring Framework's transaction management support changes traditional rules as to when a Java EE application requires an application server.

In particular, you do not need an application server simply for declarative transactions through EJBs. In fact, even if your application server has powerful JTA capabilities, you may decide that the Spring Framework's declarative transactions offer more power and a more productive programming model than EJB CMT.

Typically you need an application server's JTA capability only if your application needs to handle transactions across multiple resources, which is not a requirement for many applications. Many high-end applications use a single, highly scalable database (such as Oracle RAC) instead. Standalone transaction managers such as Atomikos Transactions and JOTM are other options. Of course, you may need other application server capabilities such as Java Message Service (JMS) and J2EE Connector Architecture (JCA).

The Spring Framework gives you the choice of when to scale your application to a fully loaded application server. Gone are the days when the only alternative to using EJB CMT or JTA was to write code with local transactions such as those on JDBC connections, and face a hefty rework if you need that code to run within global, container-managed transactions. With the Spring Framework, only some of the bean definitions in your configuration file, rather than your code, need to change.