Appender hasnt been setup so log4j hasnt been properly initialized

1. The problem is that the log4j.properties file isn't included in the classpath (it's in the same folder as your Eclipse build path, but Eclipse doesn't have it in its “runtime classpath”.
2. To add the log4j.properties file to the Eclipse classpath, click on the Run menu and select the Run Configurations option. Select the Classpath tab. Left-click on the “User Entries” item and then select the Advanced … option. Click the Add External Folder option and then click OK button. Navigate to the folder where you unzipped the crawler4j-x.x zip file and select it.
3. https://code.google.com/p/crawler4j/wiki/StepByStepTutorial

PATH and CLASSPATH variables

The PATH variable is generally used to make a command available on the terminal, without having to prepend the full path to call it; basically we will be able to call the Java interpreter from within every folder.

The CLASSPATH variable is needed to load the core Java libraries instead and makes them available to Solr components.

Spring Annotations vs XML

Annotations have their use, but they are not the one silver bullet to kill XML configuration. I recommend mixing the two!

For instance, if using Spring, it is entirely intuitive to use XML for the dependency injection portion of your application. This gets the code's dependencies away from the code which will be using it, by contrast, using some sort of annotation in the code that needs the dependencies makes the code aware of this automatic configuration.

However, instead of using XML for transactional management, marking a method as transactional with an annotation makes perfect sense, since this is information a programmer would probably wish to know. But that an interface is going to be injected as a SubtypeY instead of a SubtypeX should not be included in the class, because if now you wish to inject SubtypeX, you have to change your code, whereas you had an interface contract before anyways, so with XML, you would just need to change the XML mappings and it is fairly quick and painless to do so.

I haven't used JPA annotations, so I don't know how good they are, but I would argue that leaving the mapping of beans to the database in XML is also good, as the object shouldn't care where its information came from, it should just care what it can do with its information. But if you like JPA (I don't have any expirience with it), by all means, go for it.

In general: If an annotation provides functionality and acts as a comment in and of itself, and doesn't tie the code down to some specific process in order to function normally without this annotation, then go for annotations. For example, a transactional method marked as being transactional does not kill its operating logic, and serves as a good code-level comment as well. Otherwise, this information is probably best expressed as XML, because although it will eventually affect how the code operates, it won't change the main functionality of the code, and hence doesn't belong in the source files.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/182393/xml-configuration-versus-annotation-based-configuration

Servlets

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3106452/how-do-servlets-work-instantiation-session-variables-and-multithreading

What is a POJO ?

Plain Old Java Object The name is used to emphasize that a given object is an ordinary Java Object, not a special object such as those defined by the EJB 2 framework.

class A {} 
class B extends/implements C {}

Note: B is non POJO when C is kind of distributed framework class or ifc. e.g. javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet, javax.ejb.EntityBean or J2EE extn and not serializable/comparable. Since serializable/comparable are valid for POJO.

Here A is simple object which is independent. B is a Special obj since B is extending/implementing C. So B object gets some more meaning from C and B is restrictive to follow the rules from C. and B is tightly coupled with distributed framework. Hence B object is not POJO from its definition.

Code using class A object reference does not have to know anything about the type of it, and It can be used with many frameworks.

So a POJO should not have to 1) extend prespecified classes and 2) Implement prespecified interfaces.

JavaBean is a example of POJO that is serializable, has a no-argument constructor, and allows access to properties using getter and setter methods that follow a simple naming convention.

POJO purely focuses on business logic and has no dependencies on (enterprise) frameworks. It means it has the code for business logic but how this instance is created, Which service(EJB..) this object belongs to and what are its special characteristics( Stateful/Stateless) it has will be decided by the frameworks by using external xml file. 

Example 1: JAXB is the service to represent java object as XML; These java objects are simple and come up with default constructor getters and setters. 

Example 2: Hibernate where simple java class will be used to represent a Table. columns will be its instances. 

Example 3: REST services. In REST services we will have Service Layer and Dao Layer to perform some operations over DB. So Dao will have vendor specific queries and operations. Service Layer will be responsible to call Which DAO layer to perform DB operations. Create or Update API(methods) of DAO will be take POJOs as arguments, and update that POJOs and insert/update in to DB. These POJOs (Java class) will have only states(instance variables) of each column and its getters and setters.

In practice, some people find annotations elegant, while they see XML as verbose, ugly and hard to maintain, yet others find annotations pollute the POJO model. Thus, as an alternative to XML, many frameworks (e.g. Spring, EJB and JPA) allow annotations to be used instead or in addition to XML:

Advantages:
Decoupling the application code from the infrastructure frameworks is one of the many benefits of using POJOs. Using POJOs future proofs your application's business logic by decoupling it from volatile, constantly evolving infrastructure frameworks. Upgrading to a new version or switching to a different framework becomes easier and less risky. POJOs also make testing easier, which simplifies and accelerates development. Your business logic will be clearer and simpler because it won't be tangled with the infrastructure code


Difference between java bean , pojo, vo , dto ?

JavaBeans

A JavaBean is a class that follows the JavaBeans conventions as defined by Sun. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of what JavaBeans are:

JavaBeans are reusable software components for Java that can be manipulated visually in a builder tool. Practically, they are classes written in the Java programming language conforming to a particular convention. They are used to encapsulate many objects into a single object (the bean), so that they can be passed around as a single bean object instead of as multiple individual objects. A JavaBean is a Java Object that is serializable, has a nullary constructor, and allows access to properties using getter and setter methods.

In order to function as a JavaBean class, an object class must obey certain conventions about method naming, construction, and behavior. These conventions make it possible to have tools that can use, reuse, replace, and connect JavaBeans.

The required conventions are:

• The class must have a public default constructor. This allows easy instantiation within editing and activation frameworks.
• The class properties must be accessible using get, set, and other methods (so-called accessor methods and mutator methods), following a standard naming convention. This allows easy automated inspection and updating of bean state within frameworks, many of which include custom editors for various types of properties.
• The class should be serializable. This allows applications and frameworks to reliably save, store, and restore the bean's state in a fashion that is independent of the VM and platform.

Because these requirements are largely expressed as conventions rather than by implementing interfaces, some developers view JavaBeans as Plain Old Java Objects that follow specific naming conventions.

POJO

A Plain Old Java Object or POJO is a term initially introduced to designate a simple lightweight Java object, not implementing any javax.ejb interface, as opposed to heavyweight EJB 2.x (especially Entity Beans, Stateless Session Beans are not that bad IMO). Today, the term is used for any simple object with no extra stuff. Again, Wikipedia does a good job at defining POJO:

POJO is an acronym for Plain Old Java Object. The name is used to emphasize that the object in question is an ordinary Java Object, not a special object, and in particular not an Enterprise JavaBean (especially before EJB 3). The term was coined by Martin Fowler, Rebecca Parsons and Josh MacKenzie in September 2000:

"We wondered why people were so against using regular objects in their systems and concluded that it was because simple objects lacked a fancy name. So we gave them one, and it's caught on very nicely."

The term continues the pattern of older terms for technologies that do not use fancy new features, such as POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) in telephony, and PODS (Plain Old Data Structures) that are defined in C++ but use only C language features, and POD (Plain Old Documentation) in Perl.

The term has most likely gained widespread acceptance because of the need for a common and easily understood term that contrasts with complicated object frameworks. A JavaBean is a POJO that is serializable, has a no-argument constructor, and allows access to properties using getter and setter methods. An Enterprise JavaBean is not a single class but an entire component model (again, EJB 3 reduces the complexity of Enterprise JavaBeans).

As designs using POJOs have become more commonly-used, systems have arisen that give POJOs some of the functionality used in frameworks and more choice about which areas of functionality are actually needed. Hibernate and Spring are examples.

Value Object

A Value Object or VO is an object such as java.lang.Integer that hold values (hence value objects). For a more formal definition, I often refer to Martin Fowler's description of Value Object:

In Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture I described Value Object as a small object such as a Money or date range object. Their key property is that they follow value semantics rather than reference semantics.

You can usually tell them because their notion of equality isn't based on identity, instead two value objects are equal if all their fields are equal. Although all fields are equal, you don't need to compare all fields if a subset is unique - for example currency codes for currency objects are enough to test equality.

A general heuristic is that value objects should be entirely immutable. If you want to change a value object you should replace the object with a new one and not be allowed to update the values of the value object itself - updatable value objects lead to aliasing problems.

Early J2EE literature used the term value object to describe a different notion, what I call a Data Transfer Object. They have since changed their usage and use the term Transfer Object instead.

You can find some more good material on value objects on the wiki and by Dirk Riehle.

Data Transfer Object

Data Transfer Object or DTO is a (anti) pattern introduced with EJB. Instead of performing many remote calls on EJBs, the idea was to encapsulate data in a value object that could be transfered over the network: a Data Transfer Object. Wikipedia has a decent definition of Data Transfer Object:

Data transfer object (DTO), formerly known as value objects or VO, is a design pattern used to transfer data between software application subsystems. DTOs are often used in conjunction with data access objects to retrieve data from a database.

The difference between data transfer objects and business objects or data access objects is that a DTO does not have any behaviour except for storage and retrieval of its own data (accessors and mutators).

In a traditional EJB architecture, DTOs serve dual purposes: first, they work around the problem that entity beans are not serializable; second, they implicitly define an assembly phase where all data to be used by the view is fetched and marshalled into the DTOs before returning control to the presentation tier.

---

So, for many people, DTOs and VOs are the same thing (but Fowler uses VOs to mean something else as we saw). Most of time, they follow the JavaBeans conventions and are thus JavaBeans too. And all are POJOs.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1612334/difference-between-dto-vo-pojo-javabeans

JavaBeans

At a basic level, JavaBeans are simply Java classes which adhere to certain coding conventions. For example, classes that

1. Have a public default (no argument) constructor
2. allows access to properties using accessor (getter and setter) methods
3. Implement java.io.Serializable

More accurately, JavaBeans are classes that adhere to Sun’s JavaBeans spec, first published way back in 1996. A JavaBean was defined as a “software component model” for Java. The idea was that JavaBeans would be reusable software components that could be manipulated visually in a builder tool and that vendors would create and sell JavaBeans that could be composed together into applications by end users. The three most important features of a Java Bean are

1. the set of properties (named attributes) it exposes
2. the set of methods it allows other components to call
3. the set of events it fires (to notify registered listeners of changes)

POJO

POJO is an acronym for Plain Old Java Object. The term was coined by Martin Fowler et. al., as a ‘fancy’ way to describe ordinary Java Objects that do not require a framework to use, nor need to be run in a application server environment. It is often used to distinguish simpler, lightweight Java objects from ‘heavyweight’ code like EJBs. The use of these kind of lightweight objects in programming is described in books such as “POJOs in Action” and advocated by frameworks like Spring.

Spring beans

A Spring bean is basically an object managed by Spring. More specifically, it is an object that is instantiated, configured and otherwise managed by a Spring Frameworkcontainer. Spring beans are defined in a Spring configuration file (or, more recently, by using annotations), instantiated by the Spring container, and then injected into your application.

The reason Spring managed objects are referred to as beans is because in the very early versions, Spring was intended only for use with JavaBeans. That is no longer the case of course: Spring can manage just about any object, even if it doesn’t have JavaBean type characteristics such as default constructors or mutator methods (getters and setters). None the less, the term ‘Spring beans’ has stuck.

Can Spring beans be POJOs? Yes, and they usually are (although they don’t have to be – e.g. Spring can be used with ‘heavyweight’ Java objects, such as EJBs).
Can Spring beans be JavaBeans? As I have said, yes and again they often are but don’t have to be.

Summary

Although it have been well over 10 years since the JavaBeans spec was first published, it still carries weight and has influence the development of modern frameworks such as Spring. But while Java objects that have default constructor and use accessor methods for private fields may legitimately be called JavaBeans, the whole “reusable software component that can be manipulated visually in a builder tool” concept isn’t particularly popular anymore.

POJOs, however, are everywhere and the a backlash against the complexities for EJBs has resulted in widespread use of ‘lightweight’ Java programming.

Spring beans are objects created and managed by the Spring framework.

None of the 3 terms discussed are mutually exclusive. A Java object can be a JavaBean, a POJO and a Spring bean all at the same time.

http://www.shaunabram.com/beans-vs-pojos/ 

Spring Annotations

What is dependency injection ?
Expanding this into a real system, we might have dozens of such services and components. In each case we can abstract our use of these components by talking to them through an interface (and using an adapter if the component isn't designed with an interface in mind). But if we wish to deploy this system in different ways, we need to use plugins to handle the interaction with these services so we can use different implementations in different deployments.
http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/spring 

Unit testing : http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/2.5.x/reference/index.html
 

1. @RestController - HTTP requests are handled by a controller. These components are easily identified by the @RestController annotation.
   
   A key difference between a traditional MVC controller and the RESTful web service controller above is the way that the HTTP response body is created. Rather than relying on a view technology to perform server-side rendering of the greeting data to HTML, this RESTful web service controller simply populates and returns a Greeting object. The object data will be written directly to the HTTP response as JSON.
   This code uses Spring 4’s new @RestController annotation, which marks the class as a controller where every method returns a domain object instead of a view. It’s shorthand for@Controller and @ResponseBody rolled together.
   The Greeting object must be converted to JSON. Thanks to Spring’s HTTP message converter support, you don’t need to do this conversion manually. Because Jackson 2 is on the classpath, Spring’s MappingJackson2HttpMessageConverter is automatically chosen to convert the Greeting instance to JSON.
2. @RequestMapping - The @RequestMapping annotation ensures that HTTP requests to /greeting are mapped to the greeting() method.
3. @RequestParam -  @RequestParam binds the value of the query string parameter name into the nameparameter of the greeting() method. This query string parameter is not required; if it is absent in the request, the defaultValue of "World" is used.
4.   

Maven Guide

Maven Lifecycle Goals

1. mvn compile : This will run Maven, telling it to execute the compile goal. When it’s finished, you should find the compiled .class files in the target/classes directory.
2. mvn package : The package goal will compile your Java code, run any tests, and finish by packaging the code up in a JAR file within the target directory. The name of the JAR file will be based on the project’s <artifactId> and <version>. For example, given the minimal pom.xml file from before, the JAR file will be named gs-maven-0.1.0.jar.
3. mvn install : The install goal will compile, test, and package your project’s code and then copy it into the local dependency repository, ready for another project to reference it as a dependency.
4. 
   

Questions :

1. What is the parent section in a pom.xml ? 

2. The Scenario

   As an example, let us reuse our previous artifact, com.mycompany.app:my-app:1. And let us introduce another artifact, com.mycompany.app:my-module:1.

   <project>
     <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
     <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId>
     <artifactId>my-module</artifactId>
     <version>1</version>
   </project>

   And let us specify their directory structure as the following:

   .
    |-- my-module
    |   `-- pom.xml
    `-- pom.xml

   Note: my-module/pom.xml is the POM of com.mycompany.app:my-module:1 while pom.xml is the POM of com.mycompany.app:my-app:1

   The Solution

   Now, if we were to turn com.mycompany.app:my-app:1 into a parent artifact of com.mycompany.app:my-module:1,we will have to modify com.mycompany.app:my-module:1's POM to the following configuration:

   com.mycompany.app:my-module:1's POM

   <project>
     <parent>
       <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId>
       <artifactId>my-app</artifactId>
       <version>1</version>
     </parent>
     <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
     <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId>
     <artifactId>my-module</artifactId>
     <version>1</version>
   </project>

   Notice that we now have an added section, the parent section. This section allows us to specify which artifact is the parent of our POM. And we do so by specifying the fully qualified artifact name of the parent POM. With this setup, our module can now inherit some of the properties of our parent POM.

   Alternatively, if we want the groupId and / or the version of your modules to be the same as their parents, you can remove the groupId and / or the version identity of your module in its POM.

   <project>
     <parent>
       <groupId>com.mycompany.app</groupId>
       <artifactId>my-app</artifactId>
       <version>1</version>
     </parent>
     <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
     <artifactId>my-module</artifactId>
   </project>

   This allows the module to inherit the groupId and / or the version of its parent POM.
    
3. sd
4. 
   

References :

1. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2200725/questions-to-determine-maven-knowledge
2. http://spring.io/guides/gs/maven/
3. http://maven.apache.org/guides/ 
4.  http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-pom.html
5.