Spring Context's "@Repository" vs. Spring Data's "Repository<T, ID>"

Spring Context provides an annotation org.springframework.stereotype.Repository .
From the Javadoc:

Quote:

---

[org.springframework.stereotype.Repository] indicates that an annotated class is a "Repository", originally defined by Domain-Driven Design (Evans, 2003) as "a mechanism for encapsulating storage, retrieval, and search behavior which emulates a collection of objects".

---

On the other hand, Spring Data provides an interface org.springframework.data.repository.Repository<T, ID extends Serializable> .

To me, both things seem to have the same intention. Are there best practices when to favor one over the other? Is it beneficial to add the @Repository annotation to a subtype of Repository<T, ID>?

No. Both types server different purposes. @Repository is used to annotate arbitrary classes to activate exception translation (persistence technology specific exceptions -> Spring's DataAccessException hierarchy). The repository interface is used by the Spring Data infrastructure to pick up user repository interfaces.

We essentially had to introduce the latter as we cannot simply re-purpose the semantics of the already available annotation. Plus, the interface carries additional typing information (domain type, id type). The semantics of @Repository gets automatically activated when using Spring Data repositories, so there's no need to annotate the interfaces in turn.

Oliver, thank you for your competent answer! I just realized that Spring Data's class SimpleJpaRepository<T, ID extends Serializable> is annotated with @org.springframework.stereotype.Repository, therefore making SimpleJpaRepository eligible to Spring Framework's exception translation.