This issue seems legit to me:
That being said, I'm not familiar at all with the boot process so I might
Could someone confirm and take a look at this issue? It looks annoying for
people using Spring Boot.
Does setting @Cache(usage = CacheConcurrencyStrategy.NONE) on an entity
mean that we entirely disable the 2nd level cache for this entity?
The documentation does not reference this value and the Javadoc does not
state clearly that the cache is disabled with this concurrency strategy.
Asking that because of:
- https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12587 - where Chris disabled
writing to the cache in this case to fix a NPE;
- https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12868 - where we have the
exact same NPE when reading from the cache.
The fix is easy if it's just about disabling the cache in this case but
maybe we should update the Javadoc of CacheConcurrencyStrategy if it's
about disabling the cache entirely?
Thanks for any insight!
I got an email from Atlassian this morning about the migration from HipChat
to Stride. Basically they have not gotten Stride feature-complete in terms
of HipChat which is the trigger for the mass migration. However, they are
reaching out to all waiting teams to see if any want to migrate anyway.
The list of missing features they sent me are:
1. Guest access
2. Some admin controls and compliance settings
3. Integrations with Atlassian server products (the Jira Server app is
currently in beta and coming soon) and some other popular integrations. See
all available Stride integrations
4. User management via API
5. Dark mode
I am not really sure exactly what is missing WRT (2). (3) is nice-to-have,
but not blocker IMO assuming it gets added at some point.
I think (1) is the only one that is concerning. Though TBH for myself
personally, I do not think registering is a big deal.
Unless I hear otherwise, I plan on asking them to proceed with our
migration to Stride.
I've enforced HTTPS on hibernate.org.
I am aware that Google Chrome shows warning as we load some non HTTPS
resources as part of the pages (two images, one link and the
But if you see other things not working, let us know.
Here is the issue tracker
I'm seeing plenty of code has been refactored in recent years to use a
" public static final X INSTANCE" field rather than a normal
Often this is a good thing since memory allocation rate is *typically*
our limiting factor to improve performance, yet let's be mindful that
this pattern has some drawbacks as well.
An example is bootstrap code: if ComplexStuff.INSTANCE is used only a
very limited amount of times, and during bootstrap, having it in a
static final field will ensure that the memory of this instance is not
going to be freed up after it is no longer needed.
A similar pattern is to declare a Logger in a class as a "static
final" yet only ever use it in a catch block which is only going to be
executed to log a critical bootstrap error.
The Logger instance is taking quite some memory as well, so it would
be best to just create the Logger on the fly within the catch block,
essentially betting that this is either never going to be used (or
when it's used we want to crash fast anyway).
On top of memory usage, there's also the actual time it takes to
initialize such things; if it's rarely used, let's not use the static
final field as it enforces it to be initialized even when unnecessary
(unless being very careful).
Of course in most cases this makes no significant difference, so
should not worry anyone, but in some cases thinking about the
tradeoffs of such patterns can make a very good impact on overall
memory needs; e.g. I just removed a single singleton and this saves me
~20% of the overall memory during a bootstrap efficiency test.
hope you find it interesting!
We just published Hibernate Search version 5.10.3.Final, the third
maintenance release of Hibernate Search 5.10. This release upgrades
Hibernate Search to Hibernate ORM 5.3.3.Final, and adds a few minor
See our blog for more information:
Hibernate NoORM Team
The original message was received at Tue, 24 Jul 2018 05:06:13 +0800
from lists.jboss.org [126.96.36.199]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----