MappedInterceptor Bean Vs WebMvcConfigurer addInterceptors. What is the correct (modern) way for adding Spring HandlerInterceptor?

user_14832895 0
Viewed 185

I stumbled upon a configuration class for a project that was converted from legacy spring to Spring Boot. I see there are two ways interceptors are added. Like these

  @Configuration
  public class AppConfig implements WebMvcConfigurer {

    @Override
    public void addInterceptors(InterceptorRegistry registry) {
     registry.addInterceptor( new MyInterceptorOne()).addPathPatterns("/api/data/**");
    }

    @Bean
    public MappedInterceptor mappedResponseHeaderInterceptor() {
        return new MappedInterceptor(new String[] { "/static/css/**", "/static/img/**" }, new ResponseHeaderInterceptor());
    }
  }

both interceptors are working. I am wondering what is right way to add the interceptors in Spring boot and why these two method exists

spring-boot spring-mvc spring java
1 Answers

Basically they are the same.

registry.addInterceptor( new MyInterceptorOne()).addPathPatterns("/api/data/**");

Will internally use the MappedInterceptor to register the HandlerInterceptor with the given URL pattern.

Now the registration of a HandlerInterceptor (which MappedInterceptor implements) as an @Bean works because Spring Boot (not plain Spring!) detects HandlerInterceptor beans in the context and automatically registers them for you. This won't work in a regular Spring application.

So the way to use is to use the InterceptorRegistry as that is the documented way and the MappedInterceptor is more of an internal support class.

user_26962600
Related