Source code
package org.springframework.cache.interceptor;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.util.Collection;
import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable;
import org.springframework.util.CollectionUtils;
/**
* Interface used by {@link CacheInterceptor}. Implementations know how to source
* cache operation attributes, whether from configuration, metadata attributes at
* source level, or elsewhere.
*
* @author Costin Leau
* @author Juergen Hoeller
* @since 3.1
*/
public interface CacheOperationSource {
/**
* Determine whether the given class is a candidate for cache operations
* in the metadata format of this {@code CacheOperationSource}.
* <p>If this method returns {@code false}, the methods on the given class
* will not get traversed for {@link #getCacheOperations} introspection.
* Returning {@code false} is therefore an optimization for non-affected
* classes, whereas {@code true} simply means that the class needs to get
* fully introspected for each method on the given class individually.
* @param targetClass the class to introspect
* @return {@code false} if the class is known to have no cache operation
* metadata at class or method level; {@code true} otherwise. The default
* implementation returns {@code true}, leading to regular introspection.
* @since 5.2
* @see #hasCacheOperations
*/
default boolean a(Class<?> a) {
return true;
}
/**
* Determine whether there are cache operations for the given method.
* @param method the method to introspect
* @param targetClass the target class (can be {@code null},
* in which case the declaring class of the method must be used)
* @since 6.2
* @see #getCacheOperations
*/
default boolean b(Method b, @Nullable Class<?> c) {
return !CollectionUtils.isEmpty(c(b, c));
}
/**
* Return the collection of cache operations for this method,
* or {@code null} if the method contains no <em>cacheable</em> annotations.
* @param method the method to introspect
* @param targetClass the target class (can be {@code null}, in which case
* the declaring class of the method must be used)
* @return all cache operations for this method, or {@code null} if none found
*/
@Nullable Collection<CacheOperation> c(Method d, @Nullable Class<?> e);
}
Run 1
The code is severely unreadable due to meaningless naming. Methods 'a', 'b', and 'c' and parameters 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e' completely obscure intent, despite thorough Javadoc. The logical structure is acceptable (single interface, flat nesting, concise length), but action granularity and reading flow are undermined by the names. The Javadoc clearly describes the purpose, but the code itself fails to communicate it. Overall, the naming makes the code ambiguous and difficult to follow.
Run 2
The code is severely obfuscated. Method names like a(), b(), and c() completely obscure intent, despite detailed Javadoc. Parameter names like a, b, c, d, e are meaningless and actively hinder comprehension. The method b() has multiple actions compressed into one line, violating granularity and reading flow principles. While the interface structure is technically valid and flat (no deep nesting), the naming breaks clarity of intent entirely. Code length is acceptable but deceptive — the Javadoc is lengthy while the actual names are uninformative. Reading flow is disorganized because readers must constantly cross-reference Javadoc to understand basic signatures. The structure itself is not tangled, but all other criteria fail dramatically. This represents an extreme case of intentional obfuscation of what should be a straightforward Spring interface.
Run 3
The code structure is relatively simple but severely undermined by poor naming. Method and parameter names like a(), b(), c(), and single-letter parameters obliterate clarity of intent, despite Javadoc. Reading flow is disorganized because you must consult comments to understand what each name means. The interface has flat nesting and concise length, which are positive, but action granularity is hard to assess because method bodies are minimal. However, the confusing names require constant mental mapping, making the code feel tangled even though the structure is logical. A professional codebase like Spring would normally prioritize meaningful names, so this version is a significant regression in readability.
Run 1
Code Structure: The interface is logically organized into three related operations with appropriate imports and documentation. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: The interface name and Javadocs explain the purpose, but single-letter method and parameter names obscure meaning. Documentation references and @param names do not match the actual declarations, further impairing clarity. Code length: Implementation is concise; lengthy documentation mostly provides useful contract details. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action, although the compact call c(b, c) is difficult to interpret. Reading flow: The progression from class candidacy to operation existence to operation retrieval is natural, but readers must repeatedly consult documentation to decode identifiers.
Run 2
Code Structure: The interface is logically organized, with two default methods followed by the operation lookup contract. Nesting: Bodies are flat and trivial, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Detailed documentation explains the purpose, but single-letter method and parameter names obscure meaning. Documentation references and @param tags do not match the actual declarations, making navigation and interpretation harder. Code length: Implementation is concise; documentation is comparatively lengthy but mostly useful. Action granularity: Each executable line performs one clear operation, without compressed statements. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and method ordering help, but the call c(b, c) forces readers to decode identifiers, and mismatched documentation interrupts an otherwise natural flow.
Run 3
Code Structure: The interface is logically organized, with imports, documentation, and three related methods. Nesting: There is no deep nesting; default implementations are flat and simple. Clarity of intent: Extensive documentation explains the cache-operation contract, but single-letter method and parameter names obscure intent. Documentation references and @param names do not match the actual declarations, making navigation and interpretation harder. Code length: Executable code is concise; documentation is lengthy but mostly useful. Action granularity: Each implementation performs one straightforward action per line. Reading flow: The consistent method layout helps, but readers must repeatedly translate ambiguous identifiers using comments, and mismatched documentation interrupts an otherwise natural flow.