[Hibernate Search] Repository Notice: migrating Infinispan integration
by Sanne Grinovero
All,
please do not make changes (or propose patches) to any sources for the
Maven module
org.hibernate:hibernate-search-infinispan
In other words, anything under the path /infinispan in the repository.
We're currently working to move this module to the Infinispan project,
at the following repository:
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan
Of course we'll still maintain and love our integration, it's just
much easier to maintain if it is released together with the Infinispan
core modules.
We'll also migrate some of the integration tests.
Thanks,
Sanne
9 years, 9 months
ORM Jenkins Builds
by Steve Ebersole
I was curious why it took so long to run the master ORM jobs on the CI
machine compared to running the job locally. Locally I run `clean test` at
the root prject quite often and it takes roughly 9-10 minutes. The master
CI jobs generally take 45-50 minutes to complete.
So I enabled "Gradle build profiling" in our job. The results were
surprising in terms of ratios.
I figured findBugs, checkStyle etc probably added significant times to the
build. But I was shocked how much it added.
BTW, you can view these profile reports in {root}/build/reports/profile...
So hibernate-core, overall took 17m22.19s to run for one job. Of that,
12.5 was findBugs! checkStyle as actually "reasonable" at just under 30s.
The ratios were similar across all modules.
The aggregatedJavadoc task took a shade over 2m.
Considering that these jobs are run on ever check-in (and eventually it
would be great to auto-run them against PRs too), plus the fact that we
aren't even failing the build for the majority of findBug/checkStyle hits I
think we should define these jobs a little differently. Its not just the
time it takes. Yes we all hate to wait. But it's also the CI resources
taken up.
I'm going to put some thought into this after the 5.0 Beta release, but I
wanted to get some thoughts and feedback in the meantime. Things to
consider.
9 years, 9 months
Re: [hibernate-dev] Bytecode enhanced, Reference Cached immutable Entities
by Sanne Grinovero
[adding the mailing list]
Generally speaking, looks like we agree on the direction: EntityEntry
needs to be an interface, and some clever logic to select the
appropriate implementations.
In your draft you're having a single EntityEntryFactory as a global
service; I'm wondering if we shouldn't have the possibiliy to have a
different factory implementation per Entry type.. more on this below.
What is your primary differentiator between 'SharedEntityEntry' and
'StatefulEntityEntry' ?
For our purposes I'd have used different names, but since there's no
javadoc yet I wonder if you had different intentions.
Personally I'd have chosen something like "ImmutableEntityEntry" and
"MutableEntityEntry", there the Mutable one is a rename of the
existing implementation, and the Immutable would be a slimmed down
version which might not need fields such as:
- loadedState (not needed for readonly)
- version (what would be the point)
- ..
A concern I have is to avoid ever needing to "promote" an
ImmutableEntityEntry into a MutableEntityEntry: it's easy to mark an
existing instance of ImmutableEntityEntry as READ_ONLY, but there is
no going back if the entity entry was initially loaded as READ_ONLY.
One could think of swapping the existing entityentry, but that could
get hairy and defeats the point of optimising object allocations.
Is there a strong guarantee which we can rely on, that if an
EntityEntry is marked READ_ONLY at first load, noone will ever need to
re-mark it as mutable?
If not, the current check in DefaultEntityEntryFactory basing the
choice on the current status of the Entity might not be enough, we
might need to be a bit more conservative and only based that on
getPersister().isMutable() ?
The READ_ONLY point which you're leveraging for this specific
optimisation seems to be key for the specific optimisation we have in
mind at this point; but generalizing the concept it seems to me that
the choice of EE implementation to use for a specific Entity type will
be a consistent choice for the lifecycle of the EntityPersister, and
depending on immutable flags on the EntityPersister. Which is why I'm
suggesting that the EntityPersister should have a dedicated
EntityEntryFactory. Making the EntityEntryFactory a global service
would force to go through all the checks of the EE implementation
choice each time, while the choice should always be the same. I
wouldn't argue to save a couple of simple "if" evaluations, but it's
very possible that some more clever EntityEntryFactory implementations
than this current draft might need to do more work, for example
consult more Services to call back into OGM metadata.
Not least, having a per-type EntityEntryFactory would make it possible
to refer to it from some EntityEntry implementations and save some
memory around the common state.
Concurrency
Since the goal is to share the ImmutableEntityEntry instance among
multiple threads reading it, I'd rather make sure that it is really
immutable. For example it now holds onto potentially lazy initialized
fields, such as getEntityKey().
If it's not possible to make it really immutable (all final fields),
we'll need to make it threadsafe and question the name I'm proposing.
LockMode
From a logical perspective of users, one might think that an entity
being "immutable" doesn't necessarily imply I can't lock on it..
right? I'm not sure how far it could be a valid use case, but these
patches are implying that one can't lock an immutable entity anymore,
as the lock state would be as immutable as anything else on the
EntityEntry.
Are we good with that? Alternatively one might need to think to
separate the lock state handling from the EntityEntry.
On smaller details:
# org.hibernate.engine.internal.SharedEntityEntry is hosted in an
.internal package, I don't think it's right to refactor all the public
API javadoc which was referring to EntityEntry to now refer to the
internal implementation.
# things like EntityEntryExtraState should probably get moved to
.internal packages as well now - we couldn't do that before without
breaking either encapsulation or APIs.
In terms of git patches, the complexity of the changeset risks to get
a bit our of hand. What about we focus on creating a clean pull
request which focuses exclusively on making EntityEntry an interface,
and move things to the right packages and javadoc?
You'd have a trivial EntitEntryFactory, and we can then build the
evolution on top of that, not least maybe helping out by challenging
some points in parallel work.
These are the things I'd leave for a second iteration:
- add various implementations of EntityEntry iteratively, as needed
- the strategy such a Factory would use the pick an implementation
- ultimately, make it possible for an integrator to override such a Factory
For example with Hibernate OGM we might want to override / re
configure the factories to use custom EntityEntry implementations -
requirements are not fully clear at this point but it seems likely.
The priority being to define the API as that would be a blocker for
5.0, we have then better choices to leave more smarter and advanced
EntityEntry implementations for the future; we'd still need to
implement at least the essential ones to make sure the API of the
EntityEntryFactory has all the context it needs.
Thanks,
Sanne
On 24 March 2015 at 09:27, John O'Hara <johara(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Have you had chance to look at this? Do you have any comments/observations?
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> On 17/03/15 09:24, John O'Hara wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I have been having a think about the EntityEntry interface, and have forked
> a branch here:
>
> https://github.com/johnaoahra80/hibernate-orm/tree/EntityEntryInterface
>
> I know it is nowhere near complete, but was this the sort of idea you had in
> mind?
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> On 13/03/15 09:44, John O'Hara wrote:
>
> EntityEntry retains a reference to a persistenceContext internally that
> org.hibernate.engine.spi.EntityEntry#setReadOnly makes calls to, is this
> where the session reference is kept? As
> org.hibernate.engine.spi.PersistenceConext is an interface could we have a
> different implementation for this use case? e.g. an
> ImmutablePersistenceContext that could be shared across sessions?
>
> For the bytecode enhancement, could we change the enhancer so that it adds
> an EntityEntry interface with javassist.
> ClassPool.javassist.ClassPool.makeInterface()() as opposed to adding a class
> javassist.ClassPool.makeClass()? I need to have a look at javassit to
> confirm what javassist.ClassPool.makeInterface() does.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> On 12/03/15 18:52, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
> It is possible. Although some of the changes are particularly painful.
> Most of EntityEntry, if it is an interface, can be made to work with your
> use case. org.hibernate.engine.spi.EntityEntry#setReadOnly I think is the
> one exception, because:
> 1) your use case needs it
> 2) it expects the Session to be available internally (its not passed)
>
> The bigger thing I am worried about for you is the bytecode stuff, as that
> ties very tightly with EntityEntry.
>
9 years, 9 months
SessionFactory building APIs
by Steve Ebersole
I had not heard anything back in regards to this, so I wanted to ask one
more time before I get ready to start cutting 5.0 pre-releases in a week or
2.
I'd love to heard feedback of any kind about the new APIs, but specific
things I know I personally question:
1) What do you think of the split in MetadataSources and MetadataBuilder?
Does the aplit make sense? Or does it make more sense to combine them into
one contract?
2) What do you think of all the overloaded methods named #with tacking
different argument types, versus distinctly named methods? E.g.
MetadataBuilder#with(ImplicitNamingStrategy),
MetadataBuilder#with(PhysicalNamingStrategy), etc rather than
MetadataBuilder#withImplicitNamingStrategy(ImplicitNamingStrategy),
MetadataBuilder#withPhysicalNamingStrategy(PhysicalNamingStrategy)
Also, I am not so sure about the term "with" anymore. I had chosen that at
the time because I thought it flowed nicely with method chaining.
9 years, 9 months
Date/Time Support and timezones
by Steve Ebersole
As I start work on supporting Java 8 Date/Time types, I wanted to get
everyone's opinion on handling OffsetDateTime, OffsetTime and ZonedDateTime
with regards to timezone. Each represent a date/time in a particular
timezone/offset (much like a Calendar). A few options:
1) Forego OffsetDateTime, OffsetTime and ZonedDateTime support and just
stick with LocalDateTime, LocalDate and LocalTime.
2) Use the timezone/offset to pass along to the driver (for proper
conversion); when reading back we'd have to read back based on the default
timezone. This is essentially the old strategy used in CalendarType which
I never really liked because its not reflexive.
3) Break them into a tuple of the store each piece. E.g., for
OffsetDateTime the Tuple is a LocalDateTime (the Timestamp) and a TZ
offset. So we'd store each individually in the database and be able to
rebuild them in a fully reflexive manner.
4) Handle them using UTC or GMT at the JDBC level. This is essentially the
same as (2)
9 years, 9 months
CI Server
by Steve Ebersole
I just finished work on HHH-8697 and HHH-9320 and pushed that work to
master and 4.3. After my push, the CI jobs for each started failing in a
way I could not reproduce locally. But I did eventually divine what was
going on. The failure is actually indicative of problem elsewhere. And it
may or may not be a problem outside of our test suite. The issue is with
fact that we register org.hibernate.type.descriptor.sql.SqlTypeDescriptor
instances with
a org.hibernate.type.descriptor.sql.SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry that is
unfortunately for now defined statically via a static INSTANCE variable.
Our SqlTypeDescriptor implementations register themselves with the registry
on creation.
<backstory>
This is all code I added for implementing AttributeConverter support. When
we see an AttributeConverter we use the defined "database type" to perform
a resolution from the defined type to the recommended JDBC style code for
that type, and we then ask the SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry for the
SqlTypeDescriptor corresponding to that JDBC type code.
</backstory>
There is a test that subclasses our internal VarcharTypeDescriptor.
VarcharTypeDescriptor, like all the SqlTypeDescriptor impls, registers
itself with the SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry during its instantiation. The
"issue" here is that this subclass also registers itself into the
SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry during its instantiation via the call to the
super ctor. And because the SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry is static, this
causes the "bleeding".
How to fix this? There are a few options. Ideally
SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry would not be static and we could just move on.
However that is not possible given the current design of Types. Now this
does feed into some changes I wanted to make as we move forward in the Type
system. As I was developing our AttributeConverter support I thought it
would be really awesome if a Type (a BasicType anyway) was just a dynamic
combining of a SqlTypeDescriptor and a JavaTypeDescriptor (unless a
specific Type was named). Take a counter-example. Today we have multiple
Type impls to deal with storing a UUID (UUIDCharType, UUIDBinaryType,
PostgresUUIDType). But literally these are all just 3 different combinings
of SqlTypeDescriptor and JavaTypeDescriptor:
* UUIDCharType is a combo of UUIDTypeDescriptor and VarcharTypeDescriptor
* UUIDBinaryType is a combo of UUIDTypeDescriptor and BinaryTypeDescriptor
* PostgresUUIDType is a combo of UUIDTypeDescriptor and a specialed
pgsql-specific SqlTypeDescriptor for its UUID dtype.
The idea is similar to what I stated above in the backstory when
determining an implicit type. Today we use the java attribute type to do a
look up into the based on registration keys *for the Type*. Instead in
this future model we would use the java attribute type to determine the
recommended JDBC type code (String->Types.VARCHAR, etc) and then use that
JDBC type code to determine the SqlTypeDescriptor to use. Then combine
that with the JavaTypeDescriptor for the java attribute type. This
approach has a lot of potential benefits including the ability to
leverage java.sql.DatabaseMetaData#getTypeInfo. The benefits aside, this
is a big change, so I am not sure it is best to take that on for 5.0.
The other solution I can think of for now is basically to limit what gets
added to the SqlTypeDescriptorRegistry so that it is just Hibernate defined
SqlTypeDescriptors.
Hopefully I explained that well enough. Anyway... thoughts?
9 years, 9 months
