Sure thing. I'll try to adapt it to using the Bean registry. Vlad
On Thu, 17 May 2018, 20:07 Chris Cranford, <cranc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I personally agree with Christian, I don't see the use of the > ManagedBeanRegistry being a problem. The new interface certainly opens > the door for a variety of builder settings to be contributed easily and > using the registry allows for a versatile way to provide that bean, > whether it be through some CDI/Spring environment or the fallback > solution where we instantiate it ourselves. I believe the code as you > have it can easily be adapted to use the registry by replacing the > "newInstance()" call with a call into getting the bean from the > registry. The registry itself internally should handle getting the bean > from the container or returning you a new instance we instantiate > ourselves. > > On 05/17/2018 12:25 PM, Christian Beikov wrote: > > The functions could be contributed via a CDI/Spring bean which might not > > be such a bad idea I think. In a test environment there could be a > > different contributor active than in production. Of course, this could > > also be handled by passing in different configuration property values, > > but that's why I was saying I'm not sure about it. Maybe someone else > > has an idea if using ManagedBeanRegistry might make sense? > > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Christian Beikov* > > Am 17.05.2018 um 16:49 schrieb Vlad Mihalcea: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Looking at the SessionFactoryImpl class, the only way to provide an > >> SqlFunction is either via the Dialect or via the SessionFactoryOptions: > >> this.sqlFunctionRegistry =new SQLFunctionRegistry( > jdbcServices.getJdbcEnvironment().getDialect(), > options.getCustomSqlFunctionMap() ); > >> I'm not sure if the ManagedBeanRegistry would have helped in this case > >> without requiring more code changes. > >> > >> Vlad > >> > >> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Christian Beikov > >> <christian.bei...@gmail.com <mailto:christian.bei...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> It looks ok to me although I'm not sure if it wouldn't be more > >> appropriate to instantiate the contributor via ManagedBeanRegistry. > >> > >> > >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Christian Beikov* > >> Am 17.05.2018 um 11:20 schrieb Vlad Mihalcea: > >> > In the end, I thought of a more generic approach to for JPA > >> bootstrapping > >> > which, not only allows us to register SqlFunctions, but we can > >> apply other > >> > changes on the MetadataBuilder object used during bootstrap. > >> > > >> > This is the Pull Request: > >> > > >> > https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/pull/2288 > >> <https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/pull/2288> > >> > > >> > Let me know what you think. > >> > > >> > Vlad > >> > > >> > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Steve Ebersole > >> <st...@hibernate.org <mailto:st...@hibernate.org>> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Its not so much hindering 6.0 that I am concerned with. The > >> problem is > >> >> updatability for the user. The more things they use that > >> change = the more > >> >> work to upgrade. > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 6:51 AM Vlad Mihalcea > >> <mihalcea.v...@gmail.com <mailto:mihalcea.v...@gmail.com>> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I suppose this will be refactored considerably in 6.x. > >> >>> > >> >>> However, it's just a small change and I don't think it will > >> hinder any > >> >>> 6.x changes. > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm thinking of defining an SqlFunctionContributor interface > >> >>> (@FunctionalInterface) > >> >>> which can be provided via the properties Map that's supplied > >> when using > >> >>> the Persistence#createEntityManagerFactory method. > >> >>> > >> >>> In EntityManagerFactoryBuilder, I can just inspect that and > >> pass it > >> >>> further to MetamodelBuilder. > >> >>> > >> >>> So, it does not take any effort to implement it and users can > >> benefit > >> >>> from it. I recently answered a question on the forum on this > >> topic: > >> >>> > >> >>> https://discourse.hibernate.org/t/i-cant-use-group-concat- > >> <https://discourse.hibernate.org/t/i-cant-use-group-concat-> > >> >>> in-queries/752/14 > >> >>> > >> >>> And, realized that I was wrong about suggesting doing it via the > >> >>> Integrator mechanism (since the Metamodel is already frozen by > >> the time we > >> >>> execute the Integrator). > >> >>> > >> >>> Vlad > >> >>> > >> >>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Steve Ebersole > >> <st...@hibernate.org <mailto:st...@hibernate.org>> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> This should maybe wait for 6.0. We are ditching SQLFunction > >> in favor of > >> >>>> a more AST-friendly contract. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Beyond that, go for it. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018, 6:34 AM Vlad Mihalcea > >> <mihalcea.v...@gmail.com <mailto:mihalcea.v...@gmail.com>> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> Hi, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I realized that only the native Hibernate bootstrapping > >> mechanism allows > >> >>>>> for passing custom SQL functions. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> For JPA, we can extend the Dialect to register, but that's > >> not always > >> >>>>> desirable as it requires a code change > >> >>>>> every time the user switches to a new Dialect version. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> For this reason, I created this Jira issue: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12589 > >> <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12589> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Let me know if anyone has anything against implementing this > >> feature. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Vlad > >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>>>> 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
