I went for the proposed intermediary step to avoid breaking the API of SchemaManagementTool and its delegates. If you have a way for not breaking the API or think breaking it is alright, then +1 for doing the ProperSolution™ in 5.1.
What would it comprise, changing the delegate methods such as doCreate() to expect a single parameter object providing all the required info? Target could be a part of this, just an enum probably, based on wich delegates would do their thing. If it's that, I can try and help out with it. Regarding the release schedule, I'd personally be fine with pushing it a bit back, but then I don't know whether there are any other hard timelines to be met. 2016-01-19 16:25 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>: > I'd like to get this work into 5.1. But, as much as possible, I'd like to > get the ProperSolution in place rather than just a StepInTheRightDirection. > If we need to push this date 2-4 weeks I am ok with that. That would help > us coordinate with Infinispan 8.2 schedule (iiuc) for hibernate-infinispan, > not to mention I still have to review the work Vlad has done on the docs > again as well as polish the load-by-multi-id API[1]. > > [1] Sanne still waiting on your feedback to the open question of internal > routing of those calls. > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Steve, >> >> As discussed on IRC, I tried plugging in my own SchemaManagementTool >> and delegates and letting them do the initialization work required for >> OGM. >> >> I am hitting a wall though when it comes to the usage in the >> SchemaExport controller: As it's invoking doCreate() and doDrop() >> right in the constructor with a "fake" target for delegating the SQL >> statements, I am bitten by the fact that SchemaExport is instantiated >> twice in SessionFactoryImpl (once for create, once for drop at >> shutdown), so I see to invocations to doCreate() and doDrop(). Also I >> am lacking the knowledge of what's passed as Target for the controller >> invocation. >> >> So I went ahead and changed SchemaExport to invoke SchemaCreator and >> -Dropper only in execute(), passing them actual Target implementations >> as it's done in SchemaUpdate, too. It's not yet what you described as >> the ultimate goal (not looping back to Target), but IMO it's a step >> into the right direction, not the least making things consistent >> between SchemaExport and SchemaUpdate and also leaving APIs largely >> unchanged for the time being. With that I should be able to do it on >> the OGM side as you suggested, essentially ignoring the >> Target/Exporter stuff. >> >> I've filed ORM PR https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/pull/1231 >> for the change. Let me know what you think. >> >> Cheers, >> >> --Gunnar >> >> >> 2016-01-14 15:51 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>: >> > I am not sure I am a big fan of The String->Object change specifically. >> > In >> > theory it sounds great. But there is a major premise in schema tooling >> > around the idea of the actions being reduce-able to Strings. That's >> > important not just for SQL, but for the idea of writing to a file as >> > well. >> > It also affects the whole concept of Exporter/Exportable. >> > >> > The ultimate design goal here is to unify schema creation and dropping >> > across native and JPA requirements. I just simply have not had the time >> > to >> > work on that. This would all happen "behind" SchemaManagementTool and >> > friends. SchemaExport, etc are actually just controllers responsible >> > for >> > coordinating the calls into the SchemaManagementTool delegates. The >> > main >> > problem at the moment IMO is that Target gets passed into these >> > SchemaManagementTool delegates. Ideally, and certainly this would fit >> > with >> > your case, I think we want SchemaManagementTool or its delegates to >> > handle >> > interpreting the "arguments". This was part of the intent of developing >> > the "CommandLineArgs" stuff that is used inside SchemaExport, etc now; >> > the >> > idea was to encapsulate the settings each tool needs to operate and >> > isolate >> > the process of building/interpreting those args. >> > >> > The next step I wanted to look at there was to morph CommandLineArgs >> > into a >> > more generic "parameter object" for initializing the actual >> > SchemaManagementTool delegates. >> > >> > The idea is that the more we can push into SchemaManagementTool and its >> > delegates the more pluggable this entire process becomes. Ultimately, >> > as I >> > mentioned above, I just do not think it is feasible for ORM and OGM to >> > share all of these implementation contracts. Forcing a switch from >> > String >> > (the DDL) arguments to some amorphic Object reinforces that in my mind. >> > But that would not stop OGM from completely swapping >> > SchemaManagementTool >> > and its delegates and simply not using Target, Exporters, etc. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 7:44 AM Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Steve, >> >> >> >> One thing useful to have for OGM would be a generalization of the >> >> hbm2ddl tooling so we can re-use it for managing NoSQL databases. Not >> >> all of them are "schemaless", e.g. Cassandra works with a fixed >> >> schema, and while MongoDB largely is schemaless, we still want to >> >> create stuff like indexes in the database. >> >> >> >> I took a look and found that SchemaManagementTool as a pluggable >> >> service already goes halfway into that direction. The issue with it is >> >> that I cannot replace the list of exporters used by SchemaExport nor >> >> the list of tool targets used by SchemaUpdate. Having a pluggable >> >> service allowing me to customize that with an OGM-specific >> >> implementation should do the trick. >> >> >> >> As per some comments in the code, SchemaExport seems to be in some >> >> intermediary state, where the ops are not executed directly through >> >> the targets passed to SchemaCreator/Dropper but are read into String >> >> arrays which are then passed on to separate exporters. I suppose part >> >> of that work should be to consolidate this and basically follow the >> >> same approach as used in SchemaUpdate? >> >> >> >> Another facet is that for some OGM grid dialects we'd need another >> >> representation of commands than Strings, as not all the backends have >> >> a DDL but expect API invocations for that purpose. For that it'd be >> >> required to change Target#accept(String) into accept(Object) so we can >> >> pass some kind of command object. File exports would only work in a >> >> limited fashion, but we could live with that. Schema creation/dropping >> >> bound to the SF lifecycle is what I am after here. >> >> >> >> I'd be willing to work on this once we agree on the general approach. >> >> >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> --Gunnar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2016-01-13 14:10 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Smet <guillaume.s...@gmail.com>: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> If you clean up the conflicts I can look for 5.1 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Done! >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Guillaume >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > hibernate-dev mailing list >> >> > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > hibernate-dev mailing list >> > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
