什么是基于接口的代理？
What is interface-based proxying?
我正在阅读关于在哪里放置事务（接口与实现）的文章：
The Spring team's recommendation is that you only annotate concrete classes with the @Transactional annotation, as opposed to annotating interfaces. You certainly can place the @Transactional annotation on an interface (or an interface method), but this will only work as you would expect it to if you are using interface-based proxies. The fact that annotations are not inherited means that if you are using class-based proxies then the transaction settings will not be recognised by the class-based proxying infrastructure and the object will not be wrapped in a transactional proxy (which would be decidedly bad). So please do take the Spring team's advice and only annotate concrete classes (and the methods of concrete classes) with the @Transactional annotation.
所以问题是 interface-based proxy 到底是什么，我怎么知道它是否被使用了？是某种配置还是我 instantiate/use 个实例的方式？
如果 Spring 无法创建 JDK 代理（或者如果您通过将 proxyTargetClass 设置为 true 来强制 Spring 创建 CGLIB 代理）那么代码将不会在事务上下文中执行，因为（如 Spring 文档状态）：
The fact that annotations are not inherited means that if you are using class-based proxies then the transaction settings will not be recognised by the class-based proxying infrastructure and the object will not be wrapped in a transactional proxy
所以，我认为您的顾虑是：
How can you be sure that Spring does not create a CGLIB proxy
您必须配置基于 AOP 的事务支持。如果您通过使用 <tx:annotation-driven/> 来执行此操作，那么 proxy-target-class (false) 的默认值就足够了，尽管可以通过设置 <tx:annotation-driven proxy-target-class=“false"></tx:annotation-driven> 明确说明这一点。如果您以其他方式配置事务支持（例如，使用 Java 配置），则只需确保 TransactionProxyFactoryBean.proxyTargetClass 的值为 false。
How can you be sure that your @Transactional annotations are respected
这很简单，只需用 @Transactional 注解来注解具体的 class 而不是注解接口。这避免了任何代理问题。
总而言之，只要 TransactionProxyFactoryBean.proxyTargetClass 为 false，Spring 就应该使用基于接口的代理，但是，如果您注释具体的 class 而不是实现，那么代理问题就解决了'影响交易支持。
我正在阅读关于在哪里放置事务（接口与实现）的文章：
The Spring team's recommendation is that you only annotate concrete classes with the @Transactional annotation, as opposed to annotating interfaces. You certainly can place the @Transactional annotation on an interface (or an interface method), but this will only work as you would expect it to if you are using interface-based proxies. The fact that annotations are not inherited means that if you are using class-based proxies then the transaction settings will not be recognised by the class-based proxying infrastructure and the object will not be wrapped in a transactional proxy (which would be decidedly bad). So please do take the Spring team's advice and only annotate concrete classes (and the methods of concrete classes) with the @Transactional annotation.
所以问题是 interface-based proxy 到底是什么，我怎么知道它是否被使用了？是某种配置还是我 instantiate/use 个实例的方式？
如果 Spring 无法创建 JDK 代理（或者如果您通过将 proxyTargetClass 设置为 true 来强制 Spring 创建 CGLIB 代理）那么代码将不会在事务上下文中执行，因为（如 Spring 文档状态）：
The fact that annotations are not inherited means that if you are using class-based proxies then the transaction settings will not be recognised by the class-based proxying infrastructure and the object will not be wrapped in a transactional proxy
所以，我认为您的顾虑是：
How can you be sure that Spring does not create a CGLIB proxy
您必须配置基于 AOP 的事务支持。如果您通过使用 <tx:annotation-driven/> 来执行此操作，那么 proxy-target-class (false) 的默认值就足够了，尽管可以通过设置 <tx:annotation-driven proxy-target-class=“false"></tx:annotation-driven> 明确说明这一点。如果您以其他方式配置事务支持（例如，使用 Java 配置），则只需确保 TransactionProxyFactoryBean.proxyTargetClass 的值为 false。
How can you be sure that your @Transactional annotations are respected
这很简单，只需用 @Transactional 注解来注解具体的 class 而不是注解接口。这避免了任何代理问题。
总而言之，只要 TransactionProxyFactoryBean.proxyTargetClass 为 false，Spring 就应该使用基于接口的代理，但是，如果您注释具体的 class 而不是实现，那么代理问题就解决了'影响交易支持。