I'm fine with either, although (1) sure seems easier.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM Davide D'Alto <dav...@hibernate.org> wrote: > Solution number 2 works for me. > > Davide > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Guillaume Smet > <guillaume.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > While updating OGM to use ORM 5.2, I found out that the delegating > > implementations of a few classes are missing methods: > > - AbstractDelegatingSessionBuilder > > - AbstractDelegatingSessionFactoryBuilder > > > > It stayed unnoticed because the classes are abstract so they don't > complain > > about missing methods. > > > > Not sure what to do about this. At least one implementation of this sort > of > > things is not abstract > > - SessionDelegatorBaseImpl - and, apparently, it allowed to detect > missing > > methods. > > > > 1/ Should we make all these classes not abstract even if their names make > > it clear they should be? > > > > 2/ Another way to track it would be to have implementations of these > > abstract classes in the tests. Even unused, it would break the build and > > warn about this issue. > > > > I'm more in favor of 2/ but I thought I might as well ask. > > > > (I am preparing a PR to update these classes and also fix the hierarchy > by > > introducing a type parameter where required) > > > > -- > > 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
