When y'all talk about the bytecode enhancement solution, I'd like to better understand what you mean exactly. Do you mean at run-time like we did for ORM when we combined Session/EntityManager? The problem there is that this only works when we control the environment (WildFly e.g.). Do you mean at build-time?

Generally I am not a fan of either of these approaches.

My preference is based on the previous discussions that we intend no more 5.x release families (5.5, 5.6, etc). Given that I'd prefer that we: Create a new 5.x family (5.5, 5.9, etc) that adds support for JPA 3 on top of 5.3. This would effectively "kill" 5.4. This new 5.x release would be based on the JPA 3 API (renamed packages) and be able to read JPA 3 annotations. It would be nice if this version could read javax.persistence annotation as well, but to me that is a nice-to-have. None of us really has the time to tackle that work at the moment. And who know, maybe a contributor takes that on.

Convert 6 to use JPA 3 API. I'd prefer to not support "dual annotation reading" here - based simply on resources. This is a long term view - moving forward I do not think it is reasonable expectation to use JPA 3 API with JPA 2 annotations. That might (debatable) make sense for a transitory period, but I'd rather not "waste" the effort here for 6.

For (1), in theory, I'd prefer to keep it using the JPA 2 API and read both. However I suggested using the JPA 3 API there because I assume we are going to need a JPA 3 compliant version sooner rather than later for TCKs. On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:51 AM Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 08:39, Yoann Rodiere <yrodiere(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > Yet I'm convinced that having a release > > > which provides full JPA 3.0 TCK between 5 and 6 (or however it gets > > > renamed) would be no good to us, as it would create an adoption > > > barrier for both cathegories of people: the ones not interested to > > > migrate away from JPA2, and the ones not interested to migrate beyond > > > JPA3. > > > > I get that, but I'm definitely not as hopeful as you are as to the > > reliability of those bytecode hacks you mentioned. But I guess that's an > > uphill battle. > > > > I'm not a fan of bytecode hacks either, so maybe let's just see what a POC > looks like before tearing it down? > > What's to stop you from supporting JPA2.0 in ORM 7, with the same hacks you > > mentioned for JPA3? > > > > Right, and in fact I mentioned as one of the possibilities for ORM6 to be > able to read and interpret the "legacy" annotations from JPA2. > > I believe that's important to not get in the way of adoption but rather > actively help with some flexibility, otherwise people will have a very hard > time to upgrade to 6, and that's something that risks becoming a > significant burden on us all. > > Thanks, > Sanne > > > > - People who want JPA3 only have a hack-free ORM 7 that happens to > > support JPA2 annotations. > > - People who want JPA2 can migrate to ORM 7, and we'll provide hacks > > to make it work. > > > > At least we wouldn't be penalizing people who want to migrate to JPA3 with > > potentially unreliable bytecode hacks. Only people who want the latest and > > greatest on an older API (which is, after all, quite an unreasonable > > request) would have to put up with that. > > And we'll be able to completely ignore these hacks in ORM 8 after we > > rebased it on 7, since ORM 8 will drop support for JPA2 (I hope?). > > > > Yoann Rodière > > > > Sr. Software Engineer, Middleware Engineering, Hibernate team > > > > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> > > > > <https://www.redhat.com> > > > > > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 00:17, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com&gt; > > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 7:12 PM Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; > >> wrote: > >> > >> > The "big bang" approach that Validator implemented is an option as > >> > well; but the context is a bit different as we're having an actual > >> > major release being developed, and the matter of possible time > >> > pressure. > >> > > >> > >> Thus the proposal of Yoann and me to just rename the current 6 to a later > >> version and release a new major version that only contains the Jakarta > >> package change. > >> > >> That way, we don't end up doing additional work and having weird versions > >> partially supporting both. > >> > >> -- > >> Guillaume > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hibernate-dev mailing list > >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:49 AM Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > I'm not a fan of bytecode hacks either, so maybe let's just see what a POC > looks like before tearing it down? > >> I totally miss why we would want to even work on a POC given how much we have on our shoulders? Could someone explain it to me? IMHO, *if* consumers of our stack want to support both javax and jakarta packages, the work will need to be done there i.e. in WildFly or Quarkus. There's a good chance the solutions will be different given the totally different infrastructure of both. And supporting that for Hibernate ORM only makes sense if the whole stack supports that e.g. CDI, HV, Jakarta EL... and AFAICS most of the projects will only support either javax or jakarta, not both. So if we want to support both, we will need the extra layer I was talking about at a global level, not in Hibernate ORM. I wouldn't open the door at supporting both in ORM and let the consuming projects decide of the strategy they want to follow and how they want to solve the issue globally. -- Guillaume _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev