[hibernate-dev] new metamode development status
Hi there, As we discussed in the last dev meeting, our main dev resources are moving to the new metamodel branch, since I just find time to start working on it, and not sure about the current status of where we are now, and how much left to finish it. So, I'm starting this mail and wondering maybe others can share the current status so we can get the big picture wrt works left and estimate ETA. I think there are 3 areas here: 1. binding 1.1 basic entity binding 1.2 component binding 1.3 association binding 1.5 id binding 1.6 secondary table / join table binding ? 2. persister integration 3. test results - Best Regards, Strong Liu http://about.me/stliu/bio ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] new metamode development status
Gail and John can speak better to the overall status of this; I have been working on other things the past month+. On Tue 05 Jun 2012 02:52:58 AM CDT, Strong Liu wrote: > Hi there, > > As we discussed in the last dev meeting, our main dev resources are moving to > the new metamodel branch, since I just find time to start working on it, > and not sure about the current status of where we are now, and how much left > to finish it. Well technically we just said it was time to focus on metamodel (5.0) instead of 4.1. But really thats just John and Gail primarily plus you and me and Hardy when we have time. IIRC you said you would be able to transition to being able to do more work on that code, so thats great. > So, I'm starting this mail and wondering maybe others can share the current > status so we can get the big picture wrt works left and estimate ETA. > > I think there are 3 areas here: > > 1. binding > 1.1 basic entity binding > 1.2 component binding > 1.3 association binding > 1.5 id binding > 1.6 secondary table / join table binding ? I did identifier binding quite some time ago. I am pretty happy with how it turned out. The only part that is "not there" is handling of @MapsId and that is just because I came to the realization that that really its not the same thing as binding the identifier information. So that will be developed as a separate concept. Secondary table support is there as well as per the email I sent out to the dev list a few months ago. There was a question about whether we wanted to expand support there. The consensus was no, so the secondary table support matches what used to be possible. > 2. persister integration Keep in mind the new overall paradigm we set even (even back to the Austin meeting). Namely when you work a feature you should work it all the way up to integrating it with the persisters. > 3. test results Well there are a few levels of testing here. Basically we have tried to get much more modular in testing of this new code. So we have unit tests of the org.hibernate.metamodel.spi.source contracts to make sure that hbm and annotations are being interpreted as we expect against those common org.hibernate.metamodel.spi.source contracts. Then we functional test those org.hibernate.metamodel.spi.source contracts as they are consumed into the relational/domain/binding contracts. Finally we have functional testing in terms of using the new metamodel to build a SessionFactory and trying to load/manipulate data etc. I admit it can be tedious sometimes. But in the long run it helps to more easily identify where stuff is breaking when we have a bug/regression. -- st...@hibernate.org http://hibernate.org ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
[hibernate-dev] master and metamodel branches
I want to start discussing a plan to integrate the master and metamodel branches together. One point of discussion is whether we want to pull master over on to metamodel on a regular basis or whether we want to just wait until the "very end" and do a single painful integration. I did some searches and found quite a few recommendations for ongoing integration; however, they all specifically mentioned merges over rebasing. Another point of discussion is merging test and matrix back together. I specifically asked this on StackOverflow to get other perspectives on it: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10888724/merging-content-of-2-directories-on-separate-git-branches-and-integrating-branch Still not sure of the right answer there if we decide to go for the one-big integration event. If we do decide to move to regular integrations from master to metamodel then I think we should merge test and matrix back together immediately and do an integration. -- st...@hibernate.org http://hibernate.org ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] master and metamodel branches
On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > I want to start discussing a plan to integrate the master and metamodel > branches together. > > One point of discussion is whether we want to pull master over on to > metamodel on a regular basis or whether we want to just wait until the > "very end" and do a single painful integration. +1 for regular integration > I did some searches and > found quite a few recommendations for ongoing integration; however, they > all specifically mentioned merges over rebasing. I think now we definitely would need a merge (basically what the guys on stack overflow recommend) After the initial merge I think we could to rebases for the regular integrations if we do them often enough. It will require some discipline from everyone, since we will need to coordinate these rebases. One a rebased metamodel is pushed to the main repo everyone will need to make sure not to continue working of this. I guess what I am saying is that there is a little more effort for everyone involved here. I think it would be worth it though. +1 for getting test + matrix together asap. --Hardy ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] master and metamodel branches
Would we merge the directories on each branch and then merge branches? >From what little I know of git I think this would be best. On Jun 5, 2012 8:30 AM, "Hardy Ferentschik" wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > > > I want to start discussing a plan to integrate the master and metamodel > > branches together. > > > > One point of discussion is whether we want to pull master over on to > > metamodel on a regular basis or whether we want to just wait until the > > "very end" and do a single painful integration. > > +1 for regular integration > > > I did some searches and > > found quite a few recommendations for ongoing integration; however, they > > all specifically mentioned merges over rebasing. > > I think now we definitely would need a merge (basically what the guys on > stack overflow recommend) > After the initial merge I think we could to rebases for the regular > integrations > if we do them often enough. It will require some discipline from everyone, > since > we will need to coordinate these rebases. One a rebased metamodel is pushed > to the main repo everyone will need to make sure not to continue working > of this. > I guess what I am saying is that there is a little more effort for > everyone involved here. > I think it would be worth it though. > > +1 for getting test + matrix together asap. > > --Hardy > > > ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] master and metamodel branches
On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > Would we merge the directories on each branch and then merge branches? From > what little I know of git I think this would be best. What's about doing first a merge keeping test and matrix and then combining test+matrix on master and do another merge/rebase? ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] master and metamodel branches
+1 for early merges and Hardy's suggestion to merge first w/o combining test & matrix, then again after combining. On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > >> Would we merge the directories on each branch and then merge branches? From >> what little I know of git I think this would be best. > > What's about doing first a merge keeping test and matrix and then combining > test+matrix on master and do another merge/rebase? > > > > > > ___ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev JPAV ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] master and metamodel branches
If we merge (not rebase) then we should be fine to do it without everyone having to push first. So lets set a time for this to happen. I really want to hold off branching for JPA 2.1 implementation work until this happens, so the sooner the better. Tomorrow (6/5)? Out of curiosity, why 2 merges? That brings up whether we use rebase to integrate metamodel back into master whenever we are ready. In my experience (based on pull requests with merges of master) the rebase is really smart about weeding out merge commits. Or do we just live with the merge commits on the main code line? Also, we should discuss branching 4.1 and moving metamodel to master. I think that is really the situation we have now (only bug fixes on master, feature dev on metamodel). On Tue 05 Jun 2012 09:17:06 AM CDT, John Verhaeg wrote: > +1 for early merges and Hardy's suggestion to merge first w/o combining test& > matrix, then again after combining. > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Hardy Ferentschik wrote: > >> >> On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: >> >>> Would we merge the directories on each branch and then merge branches? >>> From what little I know of git I think this would be best. >> >> What's about doing first a merge keeping test and matrix and then combining >> test+matrix on master and do another merge/rebase? >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > JPAV > > > > -- st...@hibernate.org http://hibernate.org ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] master and metamodel branches
On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > Out of curiosity, why 2 merges? I was just thinking it might help reduce the number of potential conflicts during the first merge. If not, then one is fine in my mind. ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] master and metamodel branches
On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:51 PM, John Verhaeg wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > >> Out of curiosity, why 2 merges? > > I was just thinking it might help reduce the number of potential conflicts > during the first merge. If not, then one is fine in my mind. Same here. Since you mentioned that the test directories have already partly diverged I thought it would be easier to do things step by step. Personally I think this is the more natural approach anyways. If we sort out a merge now the collapsing of the test directories should be straight forward then. I guess one could run some quick experiments to see how bad things are. Personally I would start my attempts w/ a merge first :-) --Hardy ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] new metamode development status
I've added some info below. John and I will talk more tomorrow and we'll provide more details soon. - Original Message - > From: "Steve Ebersole" > To: "Strong Liu" > Cc: "Hibernate hibernate-dev" > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 5:07:42 AM > Subject: Re: [hibernate-dev] new metamode development status > > Gail and John can speak better to the overall status of this; I have > been working on other things the past month+. > > On Tue 05 Jun 2012 02:52:58 AM CDT, Strong Liu wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > As we discussed in the last dev meeting, our main dev resources are > > moving to the new metamodel branch, since I just find time to > > start working on it, > > and not sure about the current status of where we are now, and how > > much left to finish it. > > Well technically we just said it was time to focus on metamodel (5.0) > instead of 4.1. But really thats just John and Gail primarily plus > you > and me and Hardy when we have time. IIRC you said you would be able > to > transition to being able to do more work on that code, so thats > great. > > > > So, I'm starting this mail and wondering maybe others can share the > > current status so we can get the big picture wrt works left and > > estimate ETA. > > > > I think there are 3 areas here: > > > > 1. binding > > 1.1 basic entity binding > > 1.2 component binding Last time I looked into component binding (a while ago), I noticed that the resolved Hibernate type was not defined, and that components were not integrated into the persisters. > > 1.3 association binding AFAIK, one-to-one is not implemented yet. Many-to-one on a foreign key is working. I thought I was done with unidirectional one-to-many on a foreign key (no join table), but found some bugs. I'm wrapping those up currently, then moving to bidirectional one-to-many/many-to-one. AFIK, no associations using a join table are not implemented yet. > > 1.5 id binding > > 1.6 secondary table / join table binding ? > > I did identifier binding quite some time ago. I am pretty happy with > how it turned out. The only part that is "not there" is handling of > @MapsId and that is just because I came to the realization that that > really its not the same thing as binding the identifier information. > So that will be developed as a separate concept. > > Secondary table support is there as well as per the email I sent out > to > the dev list a few months ago. There was a question about whether we > wanted to expand support there. The consensus was no, so the > secondary > table support matches what used to be possible. > > > > 2. persister integration > > Keep in mind the new overall paradigm we set even (even back to the > Austin meeting). Namely when you work a feature you should work it > all > the way up to integrating it with the persisters. I've been integrating my work with the persister. > > > > 3. test results > > Well there are a few levels of testing here. Basically we have tried > to get much more modular in testing of this new code. So we have > unit > tests of the org.hibernate.metamodel.spi.source contracts to make > sure > that hbm and annotations are being interpreted as we expect against > those common org.hibernate.metamodel.spi.source contracts. Then we > functional test those org.hibernate.metamodel.spi.source contracts as > they are consumed into the relational/domain/binding contracts. > Finally we have functional testing in terms of using the new > metamodel > to build a SessionFactory and trying to load/manipulate data etc. I > admit it can be tedious sometimes. But in the long run it helps to > more easily identify where stuff is breaking when we have a > bug/regression. > > > -- > st...@hibernate.org > http://hibernate.org > ___ > 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
