I had intended this for 5.3 which hasn't even gone Beta yet (we wont have an Alpha).
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM Brett Meyer <br...@hibernate.org> wrote: > +1 from me on making them consistent. In practice, Bundle-SymbolicName > isn't used for much, other than a guaranteed unique identifier. One of > the Karaf guys pointed out that Bundle-SymbolicName is used to link a > fragment bundle to its host bundle, but we've been able to avoid > fragments like the plague on purpose. > > In practice, most users should be pulling in and interacting with our > bundles purely through Maven artifacts or our features.xml, so a change > would largely be unnoticed. > > We still might consider holding off doing that until at least a minor > version change, since there is a potential issue for any tooling that > might be relying on that (logging/auditing, etc.)... > > > On 12/23/17 11:38 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > > Another thing I was noticing was an annoying minor difference between the > > OSGi bundle name and the Java 9 module name: > > > > Automatic-Module-Name: org.hibernate.orm.core > > Bundle-SymbolicName: org.hibernate.core > > > > Does it make sense to adjust the OSGi bundle name to follow the module > > naming? > > > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 8:47 AM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> > wrote: > > > >> I already did a PR for the `Automatic-Module-Name` yesterday and added > you > >> as a reviewer. when you get a chance... > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 8:36 AM Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> 2017-12-22 23:07 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>: > >>> > >>>> I created a Jira to track this: > >>>> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12188 > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 5:33 AM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 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.. > >>>>> > >>> The "java.transaction" module of the JDK is marked with > >>> @Deprecated(forRemoval=true) as of Java 9, but I don't know when the > >>> removal will happen. There's JEP 320 for this ( > >>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/320), which also describes why the module > >>> exists in its current form. It's not scheduled for Java 10 currently, > and > >>> given the latter is in rampdown already, I wouldn't expect this > removal to > >>> happen before Java 11. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> * 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. > >>>>> > >>> Ah, yes, very nice. That one already defines an explicit module name > >>> ("java.persistence") via the Automatic-Module-Name manifest entry. > >>> > >>>>>> * 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? > >>>>> > >>> Not sure either. Maybe we could generate a dedicated interface into the > >>> user's module and then inject a generated implementation -- living > within > >>> the ORM module -- of that interface into the entities. Worth some > tinkering > >>> I reckon. > >>> > >>>>> * 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 > >>>>> > >>> Excellent. > >>> > >>>>> * 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? > >>>>> > >>> Done: https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12189. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> 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? > >>>>> > >>> Yes, exactly that's the mechanism. Jason Greene is working on a > document > >>> with recommendations around naming patterns, I hope it'll be published > soon. > >>> > >>> > >>>>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
