在Spring中DAO与Service关于依赖注入写法探讨

在spring中配置事务的时候，可能会遇到两种情况，一种是针对DAO层的事务拦截，还有一种是针对Service的拦截，看论坛里其实比较多的人倾向 与在service的拦截（DAO只是进行简单的CRUD操作，而Service根据业务规则来选取必要的DAO进行操作），现在要探讨的不是在哪个层面 的优势在哪里，而是只是简单基于Service的探讨配置写法哪种：
方法一：
Xml代码

1. <bean id = "dao1" class = "com.test.Dao1" />  
2. <bean id = "dao2" class = "com.test.Dao2" />  
3. <bean id = "service1" class = "com.test.Service1">  
4.    <property name="dao1" ref="dao1" />  
5.    <property name="dao2" ref="dao2" />  
6. </bean>  
7. <bean id = "dao3" class = "com.test.Dao3" />  
8. <bean id = "dao4" class = "com.test.Dao4" />  
9. <bean id = "service3" class = "com.test.Service3">  
10.    <property name="dao3" ref="dao3" />  
11.    <property name="dao4" ref="dao4" />  
12. </bean>  
13. <bean id = "bizService" class = "com.test.BizService">  
14.    <property name="dao1" ref="dao1" />  
15.    <property name="dao2" ref="dao2" />  
16.    <property name="dao3" ref="dao3" />  
17.    <property name="dao4" ref="dao4" />  
18. </bean>  

<bean id = "dao1" class = "com.test.Dao1" /> <bean id = "dao2" class = "com.test.Dao2" /> <bean id = "service1" class = "com.test.Service1"> <property name="dao1" ref="dao1" /> <property name="dao2" ref="dao2" /> </bean> <bean id = "dao3" class = "com.test.Dao3" /> <bean id = "dao4" class = "com.test.Dao4" /> <bean id = "service3" class = "com.test.Service3"> <property name="dao3" ref="dao3" /> <property name="dao4" ref="dao4" /> </bean> <bean id = "bizService" class = "com.test.BizService"> <property name="dao1" ref="dao1" /> <property name="dao2" ref="dao2" /> <property name="dao3" ref="dao3" /> <property name="dao4" ref="dao4" /> </bean>
方法二：
Xml代码

1. <bean id = "dao1" class = "com.test.Dao1" />  
2. <bean id = "dao2" class = "com.test.Dao2" />  
3. <bean id = "service1" class = "com.test.Service1">  
4.    <property name="dao1" ref="dao1" />  
5.    <property name="dao2" ref="dao2" />  
6. </bean>  
7. <bean id = "dao3" class = "com.test.Dao3" />  
8. <bean id = "dao4" class = "com.test.Dao4" />  
9. <bean id = "service3" class = "com.test.Service3">  
10.    <property name="dao3" ref="dao3" />  
11.    <property name="dao4" ref="dao4" />  
12. </bean>  
13. <bean id = "bizService" class = "com.test.BizService">  
14.    <property name="service1" ref="service1" />  
15.    <property name="service3" ref="service3" />  
16. </bean>  

<bean id = "dao1" class = "com.test.Dao1" /> <bean id = "dao2" class = "com.test.Dao2" /> <bean id = "service1" class = "com.test.Service1"> <property name="dao1" ref="dao1" /> <property name="dao2" ref="dao2" /> </bean> <bean id = "dao3" class = "com.test.Dao3" /> <bean id = "dao4" class = "com.test.Dao4" /> <bean id = "service3" class = "com.test.Service3"> <property name="dao3" ref="dao3" /> <property name="dao4" ref="dao4" /> </bean> <bean id = "bizService" class = "com.test.BizService"> <property name="service1" ref="service1" /> <property name="service3" ref="service3" /> </bean>

大家觉得在写BizService的时候注入是用service的注入好呢还是用dao的注入好呢！一起谈谈你们的看法。
个人认为方法一调理比较清晰但较为繁琐，因为如果service1中有了业务逻辑可能到了bizService还要再写一遍，方法二比较简单但到了BizService的时候可能对DAO的调用概念有所模糊化了。对于数据库事务拦截问题，不知道这两种方法是否会有所区别？

第二种
service中注入dao
service中注入service的话 有时候会引起循环依赖的
再说 从设计上说 service中注入service是不合理的
不能很好体现分层

我是用第1种方法，但配置明显复杂了，用byName或annotation自动注入的写法，如果已经有service中的方法包含了复杂的业务逻辑写法，而其它service也会用到的话，抽取出来，变成公用的方法，反正尽量减少重复的代码