Thanks for investigating this Gunnar. Some thoughts inline...
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:54 PM Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org> wrote: > * JDK 9 comes with an incomplete JTA module (java.transaction), so a > complete one must be provided via --upgrade-module-path (I'm using the > 2.0.0.Alpha1 version Tomaz Cerar has created for that purpose) > Do you know if there is a plan to fix this in Java 9? Seems bizarre that Java 9 expects all kinds of strict modularity from libraries and applications when the JDK itself can't follow that.. > * hibernate-jpa-2.1-api-1.0.0.Final.jar can't be used as an automatic > module, as the automatic naming algorithm stumples upon the numbers (2.1) > within the module name it derives; I'm therefore using my ModiTect tooling > ( > https://github.com/moditect/moditect/) to convert the JPA API JAR into an > explicit module on the fly > We actually no longer use that artifact as a dependency. Since JPA 2.2, the EG publishes a "blessed" API jar which is what we use as a dependency. > * When using ByteBuddy as the byte code provider, a reads relationship must > be added from the user's module towards hibernate.core ("requires > hibernate.core"). This is due to the usage of > org.hibernate.proxy.ProxyConfiguration within the generated proxy classes. > Ideally no dependence to the JPA provider should be needed when solely > working with the JPA API (as this demo does), but I'm not sure whether this > can be avoided when using proxies (or could we construct proxies in a way > not requiring this dependence?). > I'm not sure what a decent solution would be here. Ultimately the runtime needs to be able to communicate with the generated proxies - how else would you suggest this happen? * When using ByteBuddy as the byte code provider, I still needed to have > Javassist around, as it's used in ClassFileArchiveEntryHandler. I > understand that eventually this should be using Jandex, but I'm wondering > whether we could (temporarily) change it to use ASM instead of Javassist > (at least when using ByteBuddy as byte code provider, which is based on > ASM), so people don't need to have Javassist *and* ByteBuddy when using the > latter as byte code provider? This seems desirable esp. once we move to > ByteBuddy by default. > Yes, Sanne brought this up in Paris and it is something I will look at prior to a 5.3.0.Final * Multiple methods in ReflectHelper call setAccessible() without checking > whether the method/field/constructor already is accessible. If we changed > that to only call setAccessible() if actually needed, people would have to > be a little bit less permissive in their module descriptor. It'd suffice > for them to declare "exports com.example.entities to hibernate.core" > instead of "opens com.example.entities to hibernate.core", unless they > mandate (private) field access for their entities. > Can you open a Jira for that? > The demo is very simple (insert and load of an entity with a lazy > association). If there's anything else you'd like to try out when using ORM > as JPMS modules, let me know or just fork the demo and try it out yourself > IIUC for jars targeting both Java 8 and Java 9 we cannot include a module-info file. But we need to set the module names - you mentioned there was a "hinting" process. From what I could glean from searching (which was oddly not many hits), this is achieved by adding a `Automatic-Module-Name` entry in the JAR's MANIFEST.MF. Correct? Also, IIRC we agreed with `org.hibernate.orm` as the base for all ORM module names, so we'd have: - org.hibernate.orm.c3p0 - org.hibernate.orm.core - ... _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
