Difference between using bean id and name in Spring configuration file

Question

From the Spring reference, 3.2.3.1 Naming Beans:

Every bean has one or more ids (also called identifiers, or names; these terms refer to the same thing). These ids must be unique within the container the bean is hosted in. A bean will almost always have only one id, but if a bean has more than one id, the extra ones can essentially be considered aliases.

When using XML-based configuration metadata, you use the 'id' or 'name' attributes to specify the bean identifier(s). The 'id' attribute allows you to specify exactly one id, and as it is a real XML element ID attribute, the XML parser is able to do some extra validation when other elements reference the id; as such, it is the preferred way to specify a bean id. However, the XML specification does limit the characters which are legal in XML IDs. This is usually not a constraint, but if you have a need to use one of these special XML characters, or want to introduce other aliases to the bean, you may also or instead specify one or more bean ids, separated by a comma (,), semicolon (;), or whitespace in the 'name' attribute.

So basically the id attribute conforms to the XML id attribute standards whereas name is a little more flexible. Generally speaking, I use name pretty much exclusively. It just seems more "Spring-y".

Since Spring 3.1 the id attribute is an xsd:string and permits the same range of characters as the name attribute.

The only difference between an id and a name is that a name can contain multiple aliases separated by a comma, semicolon or whitespace, whereas an id must be a single value.

From the Spring 3.2 documentation:

In XML-based configuration metadata, you use the id and/or name attributes to specify the bean identifier(s). The id attribute allows you to specify exactly one id. Conventionally these names are alphanumeric ('myBean', 'fooService', etc), but may special characters as well. If you want to introduce other aliases to the bean, you can also specify them in the name attribute, separated by a comma (,), semicolon (;), or white space. As a historical note, in versions prior to Spring 3.1, the id attribute was typed as an xsd:ID, which constrained possible characters. As of 3.1, it is now xsd:string. Note that bean id uniqueness is still enforced by the container, though no longer by XML parsers.

Either one would work. It depends on your needs:
If your bean identifier contains special character(s) for example (/viewSummary.html), it wont be allowed as the bean id, because it's not a valid XML ID. In such cases you could skip defining the bean id and supply the bean name instead.
The name attribute also helps in defining aliases for your bean, since it allows specifying multiple identifiers for a given bean.

let me answer below question

Is there any difference between using an id attribute and using a name attribute on a <bean> tag,

There is no difference. you will experience same effect when id or name is used on a <bean> tag .

How?

Both id and name attributes are giving us a means to provide identifier value to a bean (For this moment, think id means id but not identifier). In both the cases, you will see same result if you call applicationContext.getBean("bean-identifier"); .

Take @Bean, the java equivalent of <bean> tag, you wont find an id attribute. you can give your identifier value to @Bean only through name attribute.

Let me explain it through an example :
Take this configuration file, let's call it as spring1.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<beans ...>
  <bean id="foo" class="com.intertech.Foo"></bean>
  <bean id="bar" class="com.intertech.Bar"></bean>
</beans>

Spring returns Foo object for, Foo f = (Foo) context.getBean("foo"); . Replace id="foo" with name="foo" in the above spring1.xml, You will still see the same result.

Define your xml configuration like,

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<beans ...>
  <bean id="fooIdentifier" class="com.intertech.Foo"></bean>
  <bean name="fooIdentifier" class="com.intertech.Foo"></bean>
</beans>

You will get BeanDefinitionParsingException. It will say, Bean name 'fooIdentifier' is already used in this element. By the way, This is the same exception you will see if you have below config
<bean name="fooIdentifier" class="com.intertech.Foo"></bean>
<bean name="fooIdentifier" class="com.intertech.Foo"></bean>


If you keep both id and name to the bean tag, the bean is said to have 2 identifiers. you can get the same bean with any identifier. take config as

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><br>
<beans ...>
  <bean id="fooById" name="fooByName" class="com.intertech.Foo"></bean>
  <bean id="bar" class="com.intertech.Bar"></bean>
</beans>

the following code prints true

FileSystemXmlApplicationContext context = new FileSystemXmlApplicationContext(...);
Foo fooById = (Foo) context.getBean("fooById")// returns Foo object;
Foo fooByName = (Foo) context.getBean("fooByName")// returns Foo object;
System.out.println(fooById == fooByName) //true

Is there difference in defining Id & name in ApplicationContext xml ? No As of 3.1(spring), id is also defined as an xsd:string type. It means whatever characters allowed in defining name are also allowed in Id. This was not possible prior to Spring 3.1.

Why to use name when it is same as Id ? It is useful for some situations, such as allowing each component in an application to refer to a common dependency by using a bean name that is specific to that component itself.

For example, the configuration metadata for subsystem A may refer to a DataSource via the name subsystemA-dataSource. The configuration metadata for subsystem B may refer to a DataSource via the name subsystemB-dataSource. When composing the main application that uses both these subsystems the main application refers to the DataSource via the name myApp-dataSource. To have all three names refer to the same object you add to the MyApp configuration metadata the following 

<bean id="myApp-dataSource" name="subsystemA-dataSource,subsystemB-dataSource" ..../>

Alternatively, You can have separate xml configuration files for each sub-system and then you can make use of
alias to define your own names.

<alias name="subsystemA-dataSource" alias="subsystemB-dataSource"/>
<alias name="subsystemA-dataSource" alias="myApp-dataSource" />