No, JPADependencyProcessor - which is adding the dependency - is part of "wildfly-jpa", not "jipijapa-hibernate".
2016-10-27 11:23 GMT+02:00 Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org>: > We could fix 1) as well by incorporating the sources for > jipijapa-hibernate52 in ORM. > > I think it belongs within Hibernate, as it won't be the last time that a > new ORM version requires some adaptation of bootstrap. > > On 27 Oct 2016 09:51, "Gunnar Morling" <gun...@hibernate.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> 2016-10-27 4:27 GMT+02:00 Scott Marlow <smar...@redhat.com>: >> >> > >> > > Unless I am mistaken, Gunnar is suggesting that the Hibernate ORM >> module >> > (the WF module) export Javassist. Not the application. >> > >> >> Right, Hibernate ORM's module should be the one exposing it, not the >> application nor JipiJapa. >> >> This allows the ORM module to expose the right version of Javassist (or >> none at all eventually) without requiring JipiJapa to have the knowledge >> about this. As things stand, Javassist can be considered as part of ORM's >> API, hence it's module.xml should be the one making it available to the >> user. >> >> Of course eventually we don't want to expose Javassist at all, but as long >> as we do, the ORM module should be in charge of doing so. >> >> > > >> > >> > I agree, that is what our WF pull request did, which I think is an >> > incremental improvement but that wasn't approved for the reason I gave. >> > >> >> I don't quite get the reasoning here. We all agree that Javassist >> shouldn't >> be exposed at all (and there is good progress being made towards this by >> using ByteBuddy). >> >> But as long as we do, leaving this responsibility to the ORM module is the >> right thing to do IMO. E.g. what if a JPA provider doesn't need Javassist >> at all? Still JipiJapa would currently add it to the deployment. >> >> I've done the following changes locally: >> >> 1) Altered JPADependencyProcessor to not add the Javassist dependency to >> the deployment >> 2) Altered module.xml of jipijapa-hibernate5 to not depend on Javassist >> 3) Added a new module for the latest Javassist >> 4) Altered module.xml of ORM itself to depend on that new module *and* >> re-export it >> >> With all this in place, the tests in Hibernate Search pass successfully. >> >> Scott, do you think we can try another PR with that? Again, it doesn't >> change things in terms of exposure of Javassist to the application (it is >> exposed, just as it was before). But it puts the responsibility for doing >> so to ORM's module, allowing us (via the ORM module ZIP we provide) to >> expose a newer Javassist version as needed. >> >> Note that 2 - 4 can be done via the ORM module ZIP. But 1) is a change >> that >> needs to be done on the WF side, at least I don't see how this could be >> overridden? >> >> I.e. the module ZIP is rather pointless atm. and we don't have a good way >> to put the latest ORM into WF user's hands. Would be nice to change this. >> >> >> Is the ORM testsuite building the WildFly app server from source? >> > > >> > > >> > > Good god no :) >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> Other option would be to use ByteBuddy to generate proxies instead of >> > >> Javassist to eliminate the application dependency on the Javassist >> > >> runtime classes. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Rafael Winterhalter is actually pretty far along on defining support >> for >> > Byte Buddy in Hibernate[1]. So that might soon be an option. >> > > >> > > [1] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-11152 >> > > >> > +100 :) >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
