2017-05-04 18:42 GMT+02:00 Christian Beikov <christian.bei...@gmail.com>:
> Detecting if an object is initialized should be as easy as calling "
> Hibernate.isInitialized(object)". If you want to know whether a specic
> attribute of an object is initialized you'd use
> "Hibernate.isPropertyInitialized(object,
> attributeName)". What you want is some kind of integration that makes use
> of these two methods, so that if they return false, a null value is used
> when serializing objects to XML/JSON via JAXB/JSONB. Is that correct?
>
Almost, I would like one able to just disable it, this way the serializer
doesnt need anything or knowledge of hibernate. Worse case we need to
integrate with the serializer in a way close to the one i proposed for
johnzon before.
In pseudo code it would be:
AnEntity e = find();
Hibernate.disableLazyExceptionWithNull(e);
serializer.serialize(e);
> I don't know of any hook in JAXB that could be used to put that code into
> so it works out as you'd expect it. The only other way I can think of, is
> nulling the properties explicitly which could be done quite easily. You
> probably gonna need just a single recursive method to do that. I don't see
> how that method should be part of Hibernate nor how you'd expect to be able
> to configure Hibernate so that it would do that transparently.
>
the switch of lazyexception to null would work wit jaxb. Otherwise you need
some more low level integration not portable IIRC.
> I still think the cleanest solution would be to have DTOs, which is why
> I'd argue that such a halve solution shouldn't be part of Hibernate.
>
Think we all agree (or agreed already ;)) but created this thread cause i
saw it often enough to be a need.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> ------------------------------
> *Christian Beikov*
> Am 04.05.2017 um 18:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>
>
>
> 2017-05-04 17:33 GMT+02:00 Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>:
>
>> What exactly would this "utility one level further than existing ones" do?
>>
>>
> Multiple options are possible but one is to return null instead of
> throwing lazy exception for instance.
>
>
>> And for what it is worth, IMO the new Navigable model in 6.0 will again
>> help here. Especially in conjunction with the Navigable visitation
>> support.
>>
>
> I'm not familiar enough but if it providers for each member a way to know
> if it is loaded or not it can work.
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:27 AM Christian Beikov <
>> christian.bei...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Well that is again exactly what a DTO is good for. If you as developer
>> > want the groups to be available, you add a list of groups to that
>> > special DTO type for that use case. In your data access layer you
>> > somehow populate that, which is normally done by using some mapper
>> > library like MapStruct or Dozer and then JAXB/JSONB can just work with
>> > the DTO type without any problems.
>> >
>> > Now if you forget to add a JOIN FETCH to your query and you end up with
>> > N+1 queries, that's a different problem, just like the amount of
>> > boilerplate code needed for having DTO types for every use case. That I
>> > try to solve with Blaze-Persistence Entity Views.
>> >
>> > Just a quick example to make my point here. If you have a REST endpoint
>> > /user/{id} and want to provide the list of group names along with the
>> > user information, you'd create a UserInfoDTO.
>> >
>> > @EntityView(User.class)
>> > interface UserInfoDTO {
>> > String getUsername();
>> > @Mapping("groups.name")
>> > List<String> getGroups();
>> > }
>> >
>> > Your repository returns an object of that type and you just pass that
>> > object through so JAXB/JSONB can do their work. The mapping information
>> > in the DTO is applied on a "source query" i.e. only doing the work
>> > absolutely necessary to satisfy the requested projection.
>> >
>> > Implementing this by hand is by no means impossible, but rather
>> > inconvenient I'd say, which is probably why you are seeking for other
>> > solutions.
>> >
>> > In the end, you can only try to create a minimal DTO that has exactly
>> > the fields you want to be serialized or annotate your existing entities
>> > with those "ignore" annotations and hope for the best. I don't see how
>> > hibernate could or should help in any of the two cases.
>> >
>> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> > *Christian Beikov*
>> > Am 04.05.2017 um 16:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>> > > Sure. If you add any conversion logic then you are clearly out of
>> > > hibernate scope and the problem doesnt appear anymore. Here is a
>> > > trivial example (hopefully trivial at least ;))
>> > >
>> > > User 1 - n Group
>> > >
>> > > In json we would get something like {username:...,groups:[group1,
>> > > group2]}, no issue to know if group should be loaded or not since this
>> > > part of the logic is in the mapper layer.
>> > >
>> > > So yes you can say "not my problem" but next framework will
>> > > immediately ask "how do i know" and you likely end like all
>> > > spring-data-rest recommandation with a specific mapping and not a
>> > > framework solution which is the target of that thread - at least what
>> > > I tried to explain ;).
>> > >
>> > > 2017-05-04 16:41 GMT+02:00 Christian Beikov
>> > > <christian.bei...@gmail.com <mailto:christian.bei...@gmail.com>>:
>> > >
>> > > I don't understand what you mean by "you put that logic in the
>> > > conversion", could you elaborate?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>> > >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> > > *Christian Beikov*
>> > > Am 04.05.2017 um 16:32 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>> > >> Few more points:
>> > >>
>> > >> 1. Dto dont help at any moment - or you put that logic in the
>> > >> conversion and you are back to start
>> > >> 2. Making jaxb/jsonb easy to integrate is the goal IMO. No need
>> > >> to integrate with them but just provide some utility one level
>> > >> further than existing ones
>> > >>
>> > >> Le 4 mai 2017 16:13, "Steve Ebersole" <st...@hibernate.org
>> > >> <mailto:st...@hibernate.org>> a écrit :
>> > >>
>> > >> Oops, that (3) in previous reply should have read:
>> > >> 3. supporting each format creates a new "optional" library
>> > >> dependency
>> > >>
>> > >> Overall, I like Christian's approach as a potential
>> > >> generalized approach to
>> > >> this. Basically a combination of
>> > >>
>> > >> 1. a query used to provide the "view source values"
>> > >> 2. some indication of how to map those "source values" to
>> > >> your view model
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> And again, I think 6.0's improved dynamic-instantiation
>> > >> queries are a
>> > >> simple, already-built-in way to achieve that for most cases.
>> > >> But I am open
>> > >> to discussing a way to supply that combination via API if we
>> > >> deem that
>> > >> would be good - although then I'd also question how the
>> current
>> > >> TupleTransformer does not meet that need.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:43 AM Steve Ebersole
>> > >> <st...@hibernate.org <mailto:st...@hibernate.org>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Were there a standard "represent something in XML-ish
>> > >> format" contract
>> > >> > portable across a number of formats (XML, JAXB, JSON, etc)
>> > >> then I'd be more
>> > >> > inclined to agree with this. But as it is, supporting this
>> > >> would mean
>> > >> > Hibernate implementing multiple such contracts, one per
>> > >> format. However,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 1. these formats are not our core competency
>> > >> > 2. maintaining a complete set of these transformers
>> > >> across all the
>> > >> > popular formats du-jour is a large undertaking
>> > >> > 3. I am not convinced that
>> > >> >
>> > >> > All of these increase the technical risk.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Additionally, to properly support this we'd really need the
>> > >> ability to
>> > >> > then "map" multiple views for a given entity-graph-root.
>> > >> What I mean by
>> > >> > that, is that such DTO approaches often need multiple
>> > >> "views" of a given
>> > >> > entity, e.g. a CompanyListDTO, CompanyOverviewDTO,
>> > >> > CompanyDetailsGeneralDTO, etc for a Company entity. The
>> > >> point of this is
>> > >> > that
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 1. the transformers for these are specific to each DTO
>> > >> type and would
>> > >> > be applied per-transformation
>> > >> > 2. were Hibernate to "provide" this for applications
>> > >> >
>> > >> > IMO the use of queries to obtain views is logical.
>> > >> Populating each of
>> > >> > those specific DTOs (CompanyListDTO, etc) in the most
>> > >> efficient way is
>> > >> > going to require very different SQL for each DTO. This
>> > >> implies some kind
>> > >> > of "mapping" to be able associate each DTO with query.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Given 6.0's improved dynamic-instantiation support, I even
>> > >> think that is a
>> > >> > great solution as well *for most cases*.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > So, while my objection has a "practical impact" component,
>> > >> I also just
>> > >> > question whether Hibernate integrating with each format's
>> > >> "serializer" is
>> > >> > the proper solution.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:08 AM Christian Beikov <
>> > >> > christian.bei...@gmail.com
>> > >> <mailto:christian.bei...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> This is exactly what I am trying to do with
>> > >> Blaze-Persistence Entity
>> > >> >> Views, making DTOs sexy and efficient :)
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Here a quick overview of how that looks like right now:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> > https://persistence.blazebit.com/documentation/entity-view/m
>> anual/en_US/index.html#first-entity-view-query
>> > >> <
>> > https://persistence.blazebit.com/documentation/entity-view/m
>> anual/en_US/index.html#first-entity-view-query
>> > >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> One of my targets is to make it possible to do something
>> > >> like this
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> entityManager.createQuery("FROM Order o",
>> > >> OrderDTO.class).getResultList()
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> and get an optimal query, as well as objects with only the
>> > >> necessary
>> > >> >> contents.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Maybe we can collaborate on that somehow?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> > >> >> *Christian Beikov*
>> > >> >> Am 04.05.2017 um 10:20 schrieb Emmanuel Bernard:
>> > >> >> > Following up a bit on my previous email.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > While a core integration might be best I think, if there
>> > >> are too much
>> > >> >> > reluctance, we can start with a dedicated hibernate-dto
>> > >> or whatever
>> > >> >> > module or even separate project that makes life easier
>> > >> for these "pass
>> > >> >> > through" use cases. This could be in the form of a
>> > >> wrapper API of sort
>> > >> >> > and hence not affect existing Hibernate ORM APIs.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Note that the ResultTransformer approach feels like it
>> > >> goes a long way
>> > >> >> > towards fixing the problem but as demonstrated in Vlad's
>> > >> article
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> > https://vladmihalcea.com/2017/04/03/why-you-should-use-the-h
>> ibernate-resulttransformer-to-customize-result-set-mappings/
>> > >> <
>> > https://vladmihalcea.com/2017/04/03/why-you-should-use-the-h
>> ibernate-resulttransformer-to-customize-result-set-mappings/
>> > >
>> > >> >> > it still requires quite a bit of code and a special DTO
>> > >> constructor
>> > >> >> > object. That's what we need to get rid of I think.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Emmanuel
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > On Thu 17-05-04 10:04, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>> > >> >> >> I was very much in the Vlad, Steve, Christian camp
>> > >> until relatively
>> > >> >> >> recently. One of my main concern being that replacing a
>> > >> proxy by null
>> > >> >> >> was really sending the wrong message. So I was against
>> > >> having Hibernate
>> > >> >> >> ORM facilitate such a transformation.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> I am changing my mind because I am realizing that a lot
>> > >> of applications
>> > >> >> >> are less complex that my perceived median. A lot of
>> > >> apps really just
>> > >> >> >> want data to be fetched out and then passed to jackson
>> > >> (implicitly) and
>> > >> >> >> pushed out as a REST response in JSON or some other
>> > >> serialization
>> > >> >> >> protocol.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> So while we could try and keep the stance that such a
>> > >> solution should
>> > >> >> >> remain out of scope of Hibernate ORM core, we should
>> > >> have a very smooth
>> > >> >> >> integration with something like MapStruct to create
>> > >> such bounded DTO on
>> > >> >> >> the fly. Ideally with as close to zero code as possible
>> > >> from the user
>> > >> >> >> point of view.
>> > >> >> >> I can't really describe how that could look like
>> > >> because I am not
>> > >> >> >> familiar enough with MapStruct but I think it should
>> > >> have the following
>> > >> >> >> characteristics:
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> 1. do an implicit binding between the mapped object
>> > >> graph and a
>> > >> >> detached
>> > >> >> >> object graph with a 1-1 mapping of type and
>> > >> replacing lazy objects
>> > >> >> and
>> > >> >> >> collections with null. That's the smoothest approach
>> > >> and the most
>> > >> >> >> common use case but also the one where an
>> > >> inexperienced person could
>> > >> >> >> shoot at someone else's foot
>> > >> >> >> 2. do a binding between the mapped object graph and a
>> > >> detached version
>> > >> >> of
>> > >> >> >> that object graph with a 1-1 mapping of type, but
>> > >> declaratively
>> > >> >> >> expressing the boundaries for the detached version.
>> > >> This enforces a
>> > >> >> >> clear thinking of the boundaries and will load lazy
>> > >> data in case the
>> > >> >> >> object graph loaded is missing a bit. I like the
>> > >> idea on principle
>> > >> >> but
>> > >> >> >> I think it overlaps a lot with the fetch graph.
>> > >> >> >> 3. offer a full integration between MapStruct and
>> > >> Hibernate ORM by
>> > >> >> >> letting people express a full fledge MapStruct
>> > >> transformation
>> > >> >> between
>> > >> >> >> the managed object graph and a different target
>> > >> structure
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> I favored MapStruct over Dozer because we know the
>> > >> MapStruct lead
>> > >> >> quite well ;)
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Note however that the MapStruct approach requires an
>> > >> explicit object
>> > >> >> >> copy, it feels a bit sad to have to double memory
>> > >> consumption. But that
>> > >> >> >> might be a good enough approach and bypassing the
>> > >> managed object
>> > >> >> >> creation leads to questions around the Persistence
>> > >> Context contract
>> > >> >> >> where loading an object supposedly means it will be in
>> > >> the PC.
>> > >> >> >> Maybe a constructor like query syntax allowing to
>> > >> reference a MapStruct
>> > >> >> >> conversion logic might work?
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> select mapStruct('order-and-items', o) from Order o
>> > >> left join
>> > >> >> fetch o.items
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Emmanuel
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> On Wed 17-04-19 14:29, Vlad Mihalcea wrote:
>> > >> >> >>> Hi,
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>> Although I keep on seeing this request from time to
>> > >> time, I still
>> > >> >> think
>> > >> >> >>> it's more like a Code Smell.
>> > >> >> >>> Entities are useful for when you plan to modify them.
>> > >> Otherwise, a DTO
>> > >> >> >>> projection is much more efficient, and you don't
>> > >> suffer from
>> > >> >> >>> LazyInitializationException.
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>> With the ResultTransformer, you can even build graphs
>> > >> of entities, as
>> > >> >> >>> explained in this article;
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> > https://vladmihalcea.com/2017/04/03/why-you-should-use-the-h
>> ibernate-resulttransformer-to-customize-result-set-mappings/
>> > >> <
>> > https://vladmihalcea.com/2017/04/03/why-you-should-use-the-h
>> ibernate-resulttransformer-to-customize-result-set-mappings/
>> > >
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>> Due to how Hibernate Proxies are handled, without
>> > Bytecode
>> > >> >> Enhancement,
>> > >> >> >>> it's difficult to replace a Proxy with null after the
>> > >> Session is
>> > >> >> closed. If
>> > >> >> >>> we implemented this, we'd have to take into
>> > >> consideration both
>> > >> >> Javassist
>> > >> >> >>> and ByteBuddy as well as ByteCode Enhancements.
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>> all in all, the implementation effort might not
>> > >> justify the benefit,
>> > >> >> and
>> > >> >> >>> I'm skeptical of offering a feature that does not
>> > >> encourage data
>> > >> >> access
>> > >> >> >>> Best Practices.
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>> Vlad
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Christian Beikov <
>> > >> >> >>> christian.bei...@gmail.com
>> > >> <mailto:christian.bei...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>>> Hey Romain,
>> > >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >>>> I don't think it is a good idea to expose entities
>> > >> directly if you
>> > >> >> >>>> really need a subset of the data.
>> > >> >> >>>> Reasons for that thinking are that it gets hard to
>> > >> define what needs
>> > >> >> to
>> > >> >> >>>> be fetched or is safe to be used for a particular use
>> > >> case. Obviously
>> > >> >> >>>> serialization is like a follow-up problem.
>> > >> >> >>>> I see 2 possible solutions to the problem and both
>> > >> boil down to the
>> > >> >> use
>> > >> >> >>>> of DTOs.
>> > >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >>>> 1. Use an object mapper(e.g. Dozer) that maps
>> > >> entity object graphs
>> > >> >> to
>> > >> >> >>>> custom DTO types.
>> > >> >> >>>> 2. Use specialized DTOs in queries.
>> > >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >>>> Implementing 1. does not help you with lazy loading
>> > >> issues and 2.
>> > >> >> might
>> > >> >> >>>> require very intrusive changes in queries which is
>> > >> why I implemented
>> > >> >> >>>> Blaze-Persistence Entity Views
>> > >> >> >>>>
>> > >> <https://github.com/beikov/blaze-persistence#entity-view-us
>> age
>> > >> <https://github.com/beikov/blaze-persistence#entity-view-us
>> age
>> > >>.
>> > >> >> >>>> This is a library that allows you to define DTOs with
>> > >> mappings to the
>> > >> >> >>>> entity. In a query you can define that you want
>> > >> results to be
>> > >> >> >>>> "materialized" as instances of the DTO type.
>> > >> >> >>>> This reduces the pain induced by properly separating
>> the
>> > >> >> "presentation
>> > >> >> >>>> model" from the "persistence model" and at the same
>> > >> time will improve
>> > >> >> >>>> the performance by utilizing the mapping information.
>> > >> >> >>>> I don't want to advertise too much, just wanted to
>> > >> say that I had the
>> > >> >> >>>> same issues over and over which is why I started that
>> > >> project.
>> > >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>> > >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> > >> >> >>>> *Christian Beikov*
>> > >> >> >>>> Am 19.04.2017 um 10:51 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>> > >> >> >>>>> Hi guys,
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> Short sumarry: Wonder if hibernate could get a
>> > >> feature to kind of
>> > >> >> either
>> > >> >> >>>>> unproxy or freeze the entities once leaving the
>> > >> managed context to
>> > >> >> avoid
>> > >> >> >>>>> uncontrolled lazy loading on one side and
>> > >> serialization issues on
>> > >> >> another
>> > >> >> >>>>> side.
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> Use case example: a common example is a REST service
>> > >> exposing
>> > >> >> directly
>> > >> >> >>>>> hibernate entities (which is more and more common
>> > >> with microservice
>> > >> >> >>>>> "movement").
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> Objective: the goal is to not need any step - or
>> > >> reduce them a lot -
>> > >> >> >>>>> between the hibernate interaction and a potential
>> > >> serialization to
>> > >> >> avoid
>> > >> >> >>>>> issues with lazy loading and unexpected loading.
>> > >> Today it requires
>> > >> >> some
>> > >> >> >>>>> custom and hibernate specific logic in the
>> > >> serializer which kind of
>> > >> >> >>>> breaks
>> > >> >> >>>>> the transversality of the two concerns
>> > >> (serialization and object
>> > >> >> >>>>> management/loading).
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> Implementation options I see:
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> 1. a callback requesting if the lazy relationship
>> > >> should be fetched,
>> > >> >> >>>>> something like
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> public interface GraphVisitor {
>> > >> >> >>>>> boolean shouldLoad(Object rootEntity, Property
>> > >> property);
>> > >> >> >>>>> }
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> 2. An utility to remove any proxy potentially
>> > >> throwing an exception
>> > >> >> and
>> > >> >> >>>>> replacing the value by null or an empty collection,
>> > >> something like
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> MyEntity e = Hibernate.deepUnproxy(entity);
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> 3. A switch of the proxy implementation, this is
>> > >> close to 2 but
>> > >> >> wouldn't
>> > >> >> >>>>> require a call to any utility, just a configuration
>> > >> in the
>> > >> >> persistence
>> > >> >> >>>> unit.
>> > >> >> >>>>> Side note: of course all 3 options can be mixed to
>> > >> create a single
>> > >> >> >>>> solution
>> > >> >> >>>>> like having 3 implemented based on 1 for instance.
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> Configuration proposal: this would be activated
>> > >> through a property
>> > >> >> in the
>> > >> >> >>>>> persistence unit (this shouldn't be only global IMHO
>> > >> cause
>> > >> >> otherwise you
>> > >> >> >>>>> can't mix 2 kind of units, like one for JSF and one
>> > >> for JAX-RS to be
>> > >> >> >>>>> concrete). This should also be activable as a query
>> > >> hint i think -
>> > >> >> but
>> > >> >> >>>> more
>> > >> >> >>>>> a nice to have.
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> What this feature wouldn't be responsible for:
>> > >> cycles. If
>> > >> >> relationships
>> > >> >> >>>> are
>> > >> >> >>>>> bidirectional then the unproxied entity would still
>> > >> "loop" if you
>> > >> >> browse
>> > >> >> >>>>> the object graph - this responsability would stay in
>> > >> the consumer
>> > >> >> since
>> > >> >> >>>> it
>> > >> >> >>>>> doesn't depend on hibernate directly but more on a
>> > >> plain object
>> > >> >> handling.
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> What do you think?
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > >> >> >>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau
>> > >> <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>> | Blog
>> > >> >> >>>>> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com
>> > >> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>> | Old Blog
>> > >> >> >>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>> > >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com>> | Github <
>> > https://github.com/
>> > >> >> >>>> rmannibucau> |
>> > >> >> >>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> > >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>> | JavaEE Factory
>> > >> >> >>>>> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com
>> > >> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>>
>> > >> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >> >> >>>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > >> >> >>>>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> > >> <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > >> >> >>>>>
>> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> > >> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev>
>> > >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >> >> >>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > >> >> >>>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> > >> <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > >> >> >>>>
>> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> > >> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev>
>> > >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> > >> >> >>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > >> >> >>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> > >> <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > >> >> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailma
>> n/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> > >> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev>
>> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> >> >> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > >> >> >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> > >> <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > >> >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> > >> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev>
>> > >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> > >> >> > hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > >> >> > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> > >> <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> > >> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> >> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > >> >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> > >> <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> > >> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> > >> <mailto:hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> > >> <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
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
